Xi, Thank you so much for your proposal. I took a look. It looks fine to me. Cameron, do you have any comments?
Look forward to your pull requests. - Sijie On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu....@gmail.com> wrote: > Cameron, > > Have you started any work for this? I just updated the proposal page - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/DP-2+-+Epoch+Write+Support > Maybe we can work together with this. > > Sijie, Leigh, > > can you guys help review this to make sure our proposal is in the right > direction? > > - Xi > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-63 for tracking the > > proposed idea here. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sijie Guo <sij...@twitter.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Cameron Hatfield <kin...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, we are reading the HBase WAL (from their replication plugin > > > support), > > > > and writing that into DL. > > > > > > > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the sounds of it, yes, it would. Only thing I would say is make > > the > > > > epoch requirement optional, so that if I client doesn't care about > > dupes > > > > they don't have to deal with the process of getting a new epoch. > > > > > > > > > > Yup. This should be optional. I can start a wiki page on how we want to > > > implement this. Are you interested in contributing to this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Cameron > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Sijie Guo > <sij...@twitter.com.invalid > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Sijie Guo <sij...@twitter.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016, Cameron Hatfield <kin...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Answer inline: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Cameron, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thank you for your summary. I liked the discussion here. I > also > > > > liked > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > summary of your requirement - 'single-writer-per-key, > > > > > >> > multiple-writers-per-log'. If I understand correctly, the core > > > > concern > > > > > >> here > > > > > >> > is almost 'exact-once' write (or a way to explicit tell if a > > write > > > > can > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > retried or not). > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Comments inline. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Cameron Hatfield < > > > > kin...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Ah- yes good point (to be clear we're not using the proxy > > this > > > > way > > > > > >> > > today). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Due to the source of the > > > > > >> > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot guarantee that a > > single > > > > > >> partition > > > > > >> > > will > > > > > >> > > > > be owned for writes by the same client. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Do you mean you *need* to support multiple writers issuing > > > > > >> interleaved > > > > > >> > > > writes or is it just that they might sometimes interleave > > > writes > > > > > and > > > > > >> > you > > > > > >> > > >don't care? > > > > > >> > > How HBase partitions the keys being written wouldn't have a > > > > one->one > > > > > >> > > mapping with the partitions we would have in HBase. Even if > we > > > did > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > > that alignment when the cluster first started, HBase will > > > > rebalance > > > > > >> what > > > > > >> > > servers own what partitions, as well as split and merge > > > partitions > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > already exist, causing eventual drift from one log per > > > partition. > > > > > >> > > Because we want ordering guarantees per key (row in hbase), > we > > > > > >> partition > > > > > >> > > the logs by the key. Since multiple writers are possible per > > > range > > > > > of > > > > > >> > keys > > > > > >> > > (due to the aforementioned rebalancing / splitting / etc of > > > > hbase), > > > > > we > > > > > >> > > cannot use the core library due to requiring a single writer > > for > > > > > >> > ordering. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > But, for a single log, we don't really care about ordering > > aside > > > > > from > > > > > >> at > > > > > >> > > the per-key level. So all we really need to be able to > handle > > is > > > > > >> > preventing > > > > > >> > > duplicates when a failure occurs, and ordering consistency > > > across > > > > > >> > requests > > > > > >> > > from a single client. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > So our general requirements are: > > > > > >> > > Write A, Write B > > > > > >> > > Timeline: A -> B > > > > > >> > > Request B is only made after A has successfully returned > > > (possibly > > > > > >> after > > > > > >> > > retries) > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 1) If the write succeeds, it will be durably exposed to > > clients > > > > > within > > > > > >> > some > > > > > >> > > bounded time frame > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Guaranteed. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 2) If A succeeds and B succeeds, the ordering for the log > will > > > be > > > > A > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > > then B > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If I understand correctly here, B is only sent after A is > > > returned, > > > > > >> right? > > > > > >> > If that's the case, It is guaranteed. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 3) If A fails due to an error that can be relied on to *not* > > be > > > a > > > > > lost > > > > > >> > ack > > > > > >> > > problem, it will never be exposed to the client, so it may > > > > > (depending > > > > > >> on > > > > > >> > > the error) be retried immediately > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If it is not a lost-ack problem, the entry will be exposed. it > > is > > > > > >> > guaranteed. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Let me try rephrasing the questions, to make sure I'm > > understanding > > > > > >> correctly: > > > > > >> If A fails, with an error such as "Unable to create connection > to > > > > > >> bookkeeper server", that would be the type of error we would > > expect > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > >> able to retry immediately, as that result means no action was > > taken > > > on > > > > > any > > > > > >> log / etc, so no entry could have been created. This is > different > > > > then a > > > > > >> "Connection Timeout" exception, as we just might not have > gotten a > > > > > >> response > > > > > >> in time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > > > > > > > > The response code returned from proxy can tell if a failure can > be > > > > > retried > > > > > > safely or not. (We might need to make them well documented) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 4) If A fails due to an error that could be a lost ack > problem > > > > > >> (network > > > > > >> > > connectivity / etc), within a bounded time frame it should > be > > > > > >> possible to > > > > > >> > > find out if the write succeed or failed. Either by reading > > from > > > > some > > > > > >> > > checkpoint of the log for the changes that should have been > > made > > > > or > > > > > >> some > > > > > >> > > other possible server-side support. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If I understand this correctly, it is a duplication issue, > > right? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Can a de-duplication solution work here? Either DL or your > > client > > > > does > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > de-duplication? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The requirements I'm mentioning are the ones needed for > > client-side > > > > > >> dedupping. Since if I can guarantee writes being exposed within > > some > > > > > time > > > > > >> frame, and I can never get into an inconsistently ordered state > > when > > > > > >> successes happen, when an error occurs, I can always wait for > max > > > time > > > > > >> frame, read the latest writes, and then dedup locally against > the > > > > > request > > > > > >> I > > > > > >> just made. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The main thing about that timeframe is that its basically the > > > addition > > > > > of > > > > > >> every timeout, all the way down in the system, combined with > > > whatever > > > > > >> flushing / caching / etc times are at the bookkeeper / client > > level > > > > for > > > > > >> when values are exposed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Is there any ways to identify your write? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I can think of a case as follow - I want to know what is your > > > > expected > > > > > >> > behavior from the log. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > a) > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If a hbase region server A writes a change of key K to the > log, > > > the > > > > > >> change > > > > > >> > is successfully made to the log; > > > > > >> > but server A is down before receiving the change. > > > > > >> > region server B took over the region that contains K, what > will > > B > > > > do? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> HBase writes in large chunks (WAL Logs), which its replication > > > system > > > > > then > > > > > >> handles by replaying in the case of failure. If I'm in a middle > > of a > > > > > log, > > > > > >> and the whole region goes down and gets rescheduled elsewhere, I > > > will > > > > > >> start > > > > > >> back up from the beginning of the log I was in the middle of. > > Using > > > > > >> checkpointing + deduping, we should be able to find out where we > > > left > > > > > off > > > > > >> in the log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > b) same as a). but server A was just network partitioned. will > > > both > > > > A > > > > > >> and B > > > > > >> > write the change of key K? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> HBase gives us some guarantees around network partitions > > > (Consistency > > > > > over > > > > > >> availability for HBase). HBase is a single-master failover > > recovery > > > > type > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> system, with zookeeper-based guarantees for single owners > > (writers) > > > > of a > > > > > >> range of data. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 5) If A is turned into multiple batches (one large request > > gets > > > > > split > > > > > >> > into > > > > > >> > > multiple smaller ones to the bookkeeper backend, due to log > > > > rolling > > > > > / > > > > > >> > size > > > > > >> > > / etc): > > > > > >> > > a) The ordering of entries within batches have ordering > > > > > consistence > > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > the original request, when exposed in the log (though they > may > > > be > > > > > >> > > interleaved with other requests) > > > > > >> > > b) The ordering across batches have ordering consistence > > with > > > > the > > > > > >> > > original request, when exposed in the log (though they may > be > > > > > >> interleaved > > > > > >> > > with other requests) > > > > > >> > > c) If a batch fails, and cannot be retried / is > > unsuccessfully > > > > > >> retried, > > > > > >> > > all batches after the failed batch should not be exposed in > > the > > > > log. > > > > > >> > Note: > > > > > >> > > The batches before and including the failed batch, that > ended > > up > > > > > >> > > succeeding, can show up in the log, again within some > bounded > > > time > > > > > >> range > > > > > >> > > for reads by a client. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > There is a method 'writeBulk' in DistributedLogClient can > > achieve > > > > this > > > > > >> > guarantee. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > However, I am not very sure about how will you turn A into > > > batches. > > > > If > > > > > >> you > > > > > >> > are dividing A into batches, > > > > > >> > you can simply control the application write sequence to > achieve > > > the > > > > > >> > guarantee here. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Can you explain more about this? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In this case, by batches I mean what the proxy does with the > > single > > > > > >> request > > > > > >> that I send it. If the proxy decides it needs to turn my single > > > > request > > > > > >> into multiple batches of requests, due to log rolling, size > > > > limitations, > > > > > >> etc, those would be the guarantees I need to be able to > > reduplicate > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >> client side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A single record written by #write and A record set (set of > records) > > > > > > written by #writeRecordSet are atomic - they will not be broken > > down > > > > into > > > > > > entries (batches). With the correct response code, you would be > > able > > > to > > > > > > tell if it is a lost-ack failure or not. However there is a size > > > > > limitation > > > > > > for this - it can't not go beyond 1MB for current implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your expected record size? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Since we can guarantee per-key ordering on the client side, > we > > > > > >> guarantee > > > > > >> > > that there is a single writer per-key, just not per log. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Do you need fencing guarantee in the case of network partition > > > > causing > > > > > >> > two-writers? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > So if there was a > > > > > >> > > way to guarantee a single write request as being written or > > not, > > > > > >> within a > > > > > >> > > certain time frame (since failures should be rare anyways, > > this > > > is > > > > > >> fine > > > > > >> > if > > > > > >> > > it is expensive), we can then have the client guarantee the > > > > ordering > > > > > >> it > > > > > >> > > needs. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This sounds an 'exact-once' write (regarding retries) > > requirement > > > to > > > > > me, > > > > > >> > right? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes. I'm curious of how this issue is handled by Manhattan, > since > > > you > > > > > can > > > > > >> imagine a data store that ends up getting multiple writes for > the > > > same > > > > > put > > > > > >> / get / etc, would be harder to use, and we are basically trying > > to > > > > > create > > > > > >> a log like that for HBase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you guys replacing HBase WAL? > > > > > > > > > > > > In Manhattan case, the request will be first written to DL > streams > > by > > > > > > Manhattan coordinator. The Manhattan replica then will read from > > the > > > DL > > > > > > streams and apply the change. In the lost-ack case, the MH > > > coordinator > > > > > will > > > > > > just fail the request to client. > > > > > > > > > > > > My feeling here is your usage for HBase is a bit different from > how > > > we > > > > > use > > > > > > DL in Manhattan. It sounds like you read from a source (HBase > WAL) > > > and > > > > > > write to DL. But I might be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron: > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't really thought > > > > through - > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch write > > request, > > > > > where > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the writer has > > changed > > > or > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > ledger > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch and are > > rejected > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > epoch > > > > > >> > > > has changed. > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger off after a > > > > failure > > > > > >> > would > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been written or would > > be > > > > > >> rejected. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > The issue would be how I guarantee the write I wrote to the > > > server > > > > > was > > > > > >> > > written. Since a network issue could happen on the send of > the > > > > > >> request, > > > > > >> > or > > > > > >> > > on the receive of the success response, an epoch wouldn't > tell > > > me > > > > > if I > > > > > >> > can > > > > > >> > > successfully retry, as it could be successfully written but > > AWS > > > > > >> dropped > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > connection for the success response. Since the epoch would > be > > > the > > > > > same > > > > > >> > > (same ledger), I could write duplicates. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We are currently proposing adding a transaction semantic > to > > dl > > > > to > > > > > >> get > > > > > >> > rid > > > > > >> > > > of the size limitation and the unaware-ness in the proxy > > > client. > > > > > >> Here > > > > > >> > is > > > > > >> > > > our idea - > > > > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > > > > distributedlog > > > > > >> > > -dev/201609.mbox/%3cCAAC6BxP5YyEHwG0ZCF5soh42X=xuYwYm > > > > > >> > > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > > > > > >> > distributedlog%0A-dev/201609.mbox/%3cCAAC6BxP5YyEHwG0ZCF5soh > > > > > 42X=xuYwYm> > > > > > >> > > l4nxsybyiofzxpv...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I am not sure if your idea is similar as ours. but we'd > like > > > to > > > > > >> > > collaborate > > > > > >> > > > with the community if anyone has the similar idea. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Our use case would be covered by transaction support, but > I'm > > > > unsure > > > > > >> if > > > > > >> > we > > > > > >> > > would need something that heavy weight for the guarantees we > > > need. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Basically, the high level requirement here is "Support > > > consistent > > > > > >> write > > > > > >> > > ordering for single-writer-per-key, multi-writer-per-log". > My > > > > hunch > > > > > is > > > > > >> > > that, with some added guarantees to the proxy (if it isn't > > > already > > > > > >> > > supported), and some custom client code on our side for > > removing > > > > the > > > > > >> > > entries that actually succeed to write to DistributedLog > from > > > the > > > > > >> request > > > > > >> > > that failed, it should be a relatively easy thing to > support. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Yup. I think it should not be very difficult to support. There > > > might > > > > > be > > > > > >> > some changes in the server side. > > > > > >> > Let's figure out what will the changes be. Are you guys > > interested > > > > in > > > > > >> > contributing? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Yes, we would be. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As a note, the one thing that we see as an issue with the client > > > side > > > > > >> dedupping is how to bound the range of data that needs to be > > looked > > > at > > > > > for > > > > > >> deduplication. As you can imagine, it is pretty easy to bound > the > > > > bottom > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> the range, as that it just regular checkpointing of the DSLN > that > > is > > > > > >> returned. I'm still not sure if there is any nice way to time > > bound > > > > the > > > > > >> top > > > > > >> end of the range, especially since the proxy owns sequence > numbers > > > > > (which > > > > > >> makes sense). I am curious if there is more that can be done if > > > > > >> deduplication is on the server side. However the main minus I > see > > of > > > > > >> server > > > > > >> side deduplication is that instead of running contingent on > there > > > > being > > > > > a > > > > > >> failed client request, instead it would have to run every time a > > > write > > > > > >> happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a reliable dedup, we probably need fence-then-getLastDLSN > > > > operation - > > > > > > so it would guarantee that any non-completed requests issued > > > (lost-ack > > > > > > requests) before this fence-then-getLastDLSN operation will be > > failed > > > > and > > > > > > they will never land at the log. > > > > > > > > > > > > the pseudo code would look like below - > > > > > > > > > > > > write(request) onFailure { t => > > > > > > > > > > > > if (t is timeout exception) { > > > > > > > > > > > > DLSN lastDLSN = fenceThenGetLastDLSN() > > > > > > DLSN lastCheckpointedDLSN = ...; > > > > > > // find if the request lands between [lastDLSN, > > > lastCheckpointedDLSN]. > > > > > > // if it exists, the write succeed; otherwise retry. > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just realized the idea is same as what Leigh raised in the previous > > > email > > > > > about 'epoch write'. Let me explain more about this idea (Leigh, > feel > > > > free > > > > > to jump in to fill up your idea). > > > > > > > > > > - when a log stream is owned, the proxy use the last transaction > id > > as > > > > the > > > > > epoch > > > > > - when a client connects (handshake with the proxy), it will get > the > > > > epoch > > > > > for the stream. > > > > > - the writes issued by this client will carry the epoch to the > proxy. > > > > > - add a new rpc - fenceThenGetLastDLSN - it would force the proxy > to > > > bump > > > > > the epoch. > > > > > - if fenceThenGetLastDLSN happened, all the outstanding writes with > > old > > > > > epoch will be rejected with exceptions (e.g. EpochFenced). > > > > > - The DLSN returned from fenceThenGetLastDLSN can be used as the > > bound > > > > for > > > > > deduplications on failures. > > > > > > > > > > Cameron, does this sound a solution to your use case? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Maybe something that could fit a similar need that Kafka does > (the > > > > last > > > > > >> store value for a particular key in a log), such that on a per > key > > > > basis > > > > > >> there could be a sequence number that support deduplication? > Cost > > > > seems > > > > > >> like it would be high however, and I'm not even sure if > bookkeeper > > > > > >> supports > > > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > >> Cameron > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > Cameron > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Leigh Stewart > > > > > >> > <lstew...@twitter.com.invalid > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron: > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't really thought > > > > through - > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch write > > request, > > > > > where > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the writer has > > changed > > > or > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > ledger > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch and are > > rejected > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > epoch > > > > > >> > > > has changed. > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger off after a > > > > failure > > > > > >> > would > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been written or would > > be > > > > > >> rejected. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Sijie Guo < > si...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Cameron, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I think both Leigh and Xi had made a few good points > about > > > > your > > > > > >> > > question. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > To add one more point to your question - "but I am not > > > > > >> > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code handle > > failures. > > > > > >> > > > > If not, where in the code would be the relevant places > to > > > add > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > ability > > > > > >> > > > > to do this, and would the project be interested in a > pull > > > > > >> request?" > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The current proxy and client logic doesn't do perfectly > on > > > > > >> handling > > > > > >> > > > > failures (duplicates) - the strategy now is the client > > will > > > > > retry > > > > > >> as > > > > > >> > > best > > > > > >> > > > > at it can before throwing exceptions to users. The code > > you > > > > are > > > > > >> > looking > > > > > >> > > > for > > > > > >> > > > > - it is on BKLogSegmentWriter for the proxy handling > > writes > > > > and > > > > > >> it is > > > > > >> > > on > > > > > >> > > > > DistributedLogClientImpl for the proxy client handling > > > > responses > > > > > >> from > > > > > >> > > > > proxies. Does this help you? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > And also, you are welcome to contribute the pull > requests. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > - Sijie > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Cameron Hatfield < > > > > > >> kin...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have a question about the Proxy Client. Basically, > for > > > our > > > > > use > > > > > >> > > cases, > > > > > >> > > > > we > > > > > >> > > > > > want to guarantee ordering at the key level, > > irrespective > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > ordering > > > > > >> > > > > > of the partition it may be assigned to as a whole. Due > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> > source > > > > > >> > > of > > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot guarantee that a > > > single > > > > > >> > partition > > > > > >> > > > > will > > > > > >> > > > > > be owned for writes by the same client. This means the > > > proxy > > > > > >> client > > > > > >> > > > works > > > > > >> > > > > > well (since we don't care which proxy owns the > partition > > > we > > > > > are > > > > > >> > > writing > > > > > >> > > > > > to). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > However, the guarantees we need when writing a batch > > > > consists > > > > > >> of: > > > > > >> > > > > > Definition of a Batch: The set of records sent to the > > > > > writeBatch > > > > > >> > > > endpoint > > > > > >> > > > > > on the proxy > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Batch success: If the client receives a success > from > > > the > > > > > >> proxy, > > > > > >> > > then > > > > > >> > > > > > that batch is successfully written > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Inter-Batch ordering : Once a batch has been > written > > > > > >> > successfully > > > > > >> > > by > > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > > client, when another batch is written, it will be > > > guaranteed > > > > > to > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > > > > ordered > > > > > >> > > > > > after the last batch (if it is the same stream). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. Intra-Batch ordering: Within a batch of writes, the > > > > records > > > > > >> will > > > > > >> > > be > > > > > >> > > > > > committed in order > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. Intra-Batch failure ordering: If an individual > record > > > > fails > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > > write > > > > > >> > > > > > within a batch, all records after that record will not > > be > > > > > >> written. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5. Batch Commit: Guarantee that if a batch returns a > > > > success, > > > > > it > > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > > be > > > > > >> > > > > > written > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 6. Read-after-write: Once a batch is committed, > within a > > > > > limited > > > > > >> > > > > time-frame > > > > > >> > > > > > it will be able to be read. This is required in the > case > > > of > > > > > >> > failure, > > > > > >> > > so > > > > > >> > > > > > that the client can see what actually got committed. I > > > > believe > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > > time-frame part could be removed if the client can > send > > in > > > > the > > > > > >> same > > > > > >> > > > > > sequence number that was written previously, since it > > > would > > > > > then > > > > > >> > fail > > > > > >> > > > and > > > > > >> > > > > > we would know that a read needs to occur. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > So, my basic question is if this is currently possible > > in > > > > the > > > > > >> > proxy? > > > > > >> > > I > > > > > >> > > > > > don't believe it gives these guarantees as it stands > > > today, > > > > > but > > > > > >> I > > > > > >> > am > > > > > >> > > > not > > > > > >> > > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code handle > > > failures. > > > > > >> > > > > > If not, where in the code would be the relevant places > > to > > > > add > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > ability > > > > > >> > > > > > to do this, and would the project be interested in a > > pull > > > > > >> request? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > > > > Cameron > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
