[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16433077#comment-16433077
]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-13910:
-----------------------------------------------
bq. For the ReadRepair interface, since there’s no such thing as a background
read repair anymore, we should rename startForegroundRepair and
awaitForegroundRepairFinish to something like startRepair and awaitRepair.
I had that thought, but wanted to keep the patch to pure surgical removal. I
wanted wrong, though, and you are right - we might as well rename it here, to
minimise future confusion. Will do.
bq. What do you think about removing the related code from the schema, ddl, and
table metadata code as well? The only benefit I see to keeping it around is
that tooling that reads or writes these values won’t break. Since we’re
removing the feature, and it’s going in a x.0 release that will require some
review of tooling, it would probably be more informative to throw an exception,
instead of printing a warning that may or may not be noticed.
I don't know. A part of me thinks that it's a bit rude to go from full support
to throwing exceptions in one jump. I would prefer to warn and ignore in 4.0,
but clean up the rest in some future release. Turning on [~slebresne] signal.
> Remove read_repair_chance/dclocal_read_repair_chance
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-13910
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13910
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Aleksey Yeschenko
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> First, let me clarify so this is not misunderstood that I'm not *at all*
> suggesting to remove the read-repair mechanism of detecting and repairing
> inconsistencies between read responses: that mechanism is imo fine and
> useful. But the {{read_repair_chance}} and {{dclocal_read_repair_chance}}
> have never been about _enabling_ that mechanism, they are about querying all
> replicas (even when this is not required by the consistency level) for the
> sole purpose of maybe read-repairing some of the replica that wouldn't have
> been queried otherwise. Which btw, bring me to reason 1 for considering their
> removal: their naming/behavior is super confusing. Over the years, I've seen
> countless users (and not only newbies) misunderstanding what those options
> do, and as a consequence misunderstand when read-repair itself was happening.
> But my 2nd reason for suggesting this is that I suspect
> {{read_repair_chance}}/{{dclocal_read_repair_chance}} are, especially
> nowadays, more harmful than anything else when enabled. When those option
> kick in, what you trade-off is additional resources consumption (all nodes
> have to execute the read) for a _fairly remote chance_ of having some
> inconsistencies repaired on _some_ replica _a bit faster_ than they would
> otherwise be. To justify that last part, let's recall that:
> # most inconsistencies are actually fixed by hints in practice; and in the
> case where a node stay dead for a long time so that hints ends up timing-out,
> you really should repair the node when it comes back (if not simply
> re-bootstrapping it). Read-repair probably don't fix _that_ much stuff in
> the first place.
> # again, read-repair do happen without those options kicking in. If you do
> reads at {{QUORUM}}, inconsistencies will eventually get read-repaired all
> the same. Just a tiny bit less quickly.
> # I suspect almost everyone use a low "chance" for those options at best
> (because the extra resources consumption is real), so at the end of the day,
> it's up to chance how much faster this fixes inconsistencies.
> Overall, I'm having a hard time imagining real cases where that trade-off
> really make sense. Don't get me wrong, those options had their places a long
> time ago when hints weren't working all that well, but I think they bring
> more confusion than benefits now.
> And I think it's sane to reconsider stuffs every once in a while, and to
> clean up anything that may not make all that much sense anymore, which I
> think is the case here.
> Tl;dr, I feel the benefits brought by those options are very slim at best and
> well overshadowed by the confusion they bring, and not worth maintaining the
> code that supports them (which, to be fair, isn't huge, but getting rid of
> {{ReadCallback.AsyncRepairRunner}} wouldn't hurt for instance).
> Lastly, if the consensus here ends up being that they can have their use in
> weird case and that we fill supporting those cases is worth confusing
> everyone else and maintaining that code, I would still suggest disabling them
> totally by default.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org
