[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3200?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16202751#comment-16202751
 ] 

Blake Eggleston commented on CASSANDRA-3200:
--------------------------------------------

bq. yeah I agree it duplicates a lot of code, but they also do different things 
- the asymmetric ones don't need the merkle trees for example since we compare 
everything outside of this class now. Let me know if you see a straight-forward 
way to do it. I'll try to break out the common code in a separate class. 
Hopefully the non-symmetric classes can be removed once we have confidence this 
works as well.

Good point, I wasn’t paying attention to the stuff going on in their respective 
base classes

bq. indentation looks good to me and they look good on github or am I 
misunderstanding you?

The formatting of the matrices looks good, they just look weird starting at 
column 0 when the rest of the method / comment is indented 8 spaces. iow, 
something like this:

{code}
     /*
      ... something ...

        A   B   C   D   E
      A     =   x   x   x
      B         x   x   x
      C             x   x
      D                 =
     */
{code}

Second round of review:

Everything looks good for the most part, and your optimization / stream 
reduction stuff makes sense. There are just a few minor things:

HostDifferences:
* {{hasDifferencesFor}} isEmpty check is uneccesary

ReducedDifferenceHolder
* Probably don’t need this class, ImmutableMap<InetAddress, HostDifferences> 
should be fine

RepairOption
* default for optimizeStreams seems to be false, but javadoc says it’s true

AsymmetricLocalSyncTask
* uncomment or remove logger info statement at line 95

AsymmetricSyncTask
* startTime is compared to Long.MIN_VALUE in {{finished}}, but it never 
initialized to that value. Unless I’m mistaken, long values that aren’t 
explicitly initialized to some value become 0 by default, so that branch in 
finished will always run, even if {{run}} wasn’t called.

> Repair: compare all trees together (for a given range/cf) instead of by pair 
> in isolation
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-3200
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3200
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Assignee: Marcus Eriksson
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: repair
>             Fix For: 4.x
>
>
> Currently, repair compare merkle trees by pair, in isolation of any other 
> tree. What that means concretely is that if I have three node A, B and C 
> (RF=3) with A and B in sync, but C having some range r inconsitent with both 
> A and B (since those are consistent), we will do the following transfer of r: 
> A -> C, C -> A, B -> C, C -> B.
> The fact that we do both A -> C and C -> A is fine, because we cannot know 
> which one is more to date from A or C. However, the transfer B -> C is 
> useless provided we do A -> C if A and B are in sync. Not doing that transfer 
> will be a 25% improvement in that case. With RF=5 and only one node 
> inconsistent with all the others, that almost a 40% improvement, etc...
> Given that this situation of one node not in sync while the others are is 
> probably fairly common (one node died so it is behind), this could be a fair 
> improvement over what is transferred. In the case where we use repair to 
> rebuild completely a node, this will be a dramatic improvement, because it 
> will avoid the rebuilded node to get RF times the data it should get.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Reply via email to