Svala, >> Could you please take a look at PR: Going to review today, thanks for attaching the bot visa.
>> 1. Should I consider that my cluster is broken? There is no answer! The >> false-positive result is possible. That's a question about atomic nature. It's not impossible to lock atomic entry to perform the check. You should perform some attempts, it's your decision how many. By default, atomic RR performs 3 attempts, you may increase this by setting IGNITE_NEAR_GET_MAX_REMAPS or by just performing additional gets. >> 2. What should be done here in order to check/resolve the issue? Perhaps, I >> should restart a node (which one?), restart the whole cluster, put a new >> value... It's not possible, currently, to fix atomic caches. You may only check the consistency. And it's better than nothing, I think. We should find a way how to fix atomic consistency first. A possible strategy is to use ЕntryProcessor which will replace all owner's values with "latest" and do nothing in case newest (than latest) value found (opposite to preloading approach). >> 3. IgniteConsistencyViolationException is absolutely useless. It does not >> provide any information about the issue and possible way to fix it. It means that some keys from your get operation are broken. IgniteConsistencyViolationException CAN be extended with a list of broken keys in the future. >> It seems that transactional caches are covered much better. Correct. Tx caches consistency is more important that atomic consistency, that's why it was implemented first. BTW, AFAIK, atomics also were not fixed at 10078 [1]. >> Well, near caches are widely used and fully transactional, so I think it >> makes sense to support the feature for near caches too. As I told before, it will be nice to implement this in the future, but we have more important tasks for now. The main goal was to cover tx caches, to be able to fix them in case of the real problem at production. Summarizing the roadmap, My goal now is to finish the tx case, now we have an issue with false positive consistency violation [2]. Also, we're going to update Jepsen tests [3] with RR to ensure tx caches fixed. Next main goal is to use RR at TC checks [4], help with this issue are appreciated. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10078 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11972 [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11971 On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:51 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > Ok, thank you > > пн, 15 июл. 2019 г., 16:46 Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > I did the review. > > > > пн, 15 июля 2019 г., 16:15 Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > > > > > Igniters, who did a review of > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 before the merge? > > I've > > > checked both PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 and > Issue, > > > and dev.list thread and didn't find any LGTM. > > > > > > Anton, since you've rejected lazy consensus in our process, we have RTC > > in > > > that (core) module. So I'd like to know if the fix was covered by the > > > review. > > > > > > Because you're a committer, a reviewer can be non-committer. So, who > was > > a > > > reviewer? Or was process ignored? > > > > > > пн, 15 июл. 2019 г. в 15:37, Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > Hello Anton, > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a > > > vision > > > > of how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > Could you please take a look at PR: > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6689 > > > > > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my > > > solution > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > In my humble opinion, I would consider this feature as experimental > one > > > (It > > > > does not seem production-ready). > > > > Let me clarify this with the following simple example: > > > > > > > > try { > > > > atomicCache.withReadRepair().getAll(keys); > > > > } > > > > catch (CacheException e) { > > > > // What should be done here from the end-user point of view? > > > > } > > > > > > > > 1. Should I consider that my cluster is broken? There is no answer! > The > > > > false-positive result is possible. > > > > 2. What should be done here in order to check/resolve the issue? > > > Perhaps, I > > > > should restart a node (which one?), restart the whole cluster, put a > > new > > > > value... > > > > 3. IgniteConsistencyViolationException is absolutely useless. It does > > not > > > > provide any information about the issue and possible way to fix it. > > > > > > > > It seems that transactional caches are covered much better. > > > > > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my > > > wish > > > > to > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > Well, near caches are widely used and fully transactional, so I think > > it > > > > makes sense to support the feature for near caches too. > > > > .Net is already aware of 'ReadRepair'. It seems to me, that it can be > > > > easily supported for C++. I don't see a reason why it should not be > > done > > > :) > > > > > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? That's a good idea, > > but I > > > > found it's not easy to imagine API to for such tool. > > > > Yep, perhaps it can be done on the idle cluster via `idle-verify` > > command > > > > with additional flag. Agreed, that this approach is not the best one > > > > definitely. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > S. > > > > > > > > чт, 11 июл. 2019 г. в 09:53, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Slava, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your review first! > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. > > Please > > > > take > > > > > a > > > > > >> look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > Since your comments mostly about Javadoc (does this mean that my > > > solution > > > > > is so great that you ask me only to fix Javadocs :) ?), > > > > > I'd like to propose you to provide fixes as a PR since you have a > > > vision > > > > of > > > > > how it should be made. I'll review them and merge shortly. > > > > > > > > > > >> By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > scenarios? > > > > > The best check is to use RR at real code. > > > > > For example, I'm injecting RR now to the test with concurrent > > > > modifications > > > > > and restarts [1]. > > > > > > > > > > >> I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > tickets > > > that > > > > > >> should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > >> I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > Mostly agree with you, but > > > > > - MVCC is not production ready, > > > > > - not sure near support really required, > > > > > - metrics are better for monitoring, but the Event is enough for my > > > wish > > > > to > > > > > cover AI with consistency check, > > > > > - do we really need Platforms and Thin Client support? > > > > > Also, we should not produce stillborn issue. > > > > > All limitations listed at proxy creation method and they definitely > > are > > > > not > > > > > showstoppers and may be fixed later if someone interested. > > > > > Сoming back to AI 3.0 discussion, we have A LOT of features and > it's > > > > almost > > > > > impossible (require much more time that feature's cost) to support > > them > > > > > all. > > > > > I will be pretty happy in case someone will do this and provide > help > > if > > > > > necessary! > > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery too > > > > > Do you mean per partition check and recovery? > > > > > That's a good idea, but I found it's not easy to imagine API to for > > > such > > > > > tool. > > > > > In case you ready to assist with proper API/design this will > > definitely > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11973 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, it would be a good idea to think about the recovery > tool/ > > > > > > control-utility command that will allow achieving the same goal. > > > > > > If I am not mistaken it was already proposed in the email thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 15:33, Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > slava.kopti...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the ReadRepair feature is finally merged and that is good > > > news > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a consensus about the whole > > > > functionality > > > > > in > > > > > > > any of these topics: > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Consistency-check-and-fix-review-request-td41629.html > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Read-Repair-ex-Consistency-Check-review-request-2-td42421.html > > > > > > > Also, there are no comments/discussion in JIRA. That makes me > sad > > > :( > > > > > > > especially when a feature is huge, not obvious and involves > > > changing > > > > > > public > > > > > > > API (and that is the case, I think). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I left some comments in your pull-request at github. > > Please > > > > > take > > > > > > a > > > > > > > look. The most annoying thing is poorly documented code :( > > > > > > > By the way, is it required to add test related to fail-over > > > > scenarios? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just checked, the IEP page and I still cannot find Jira > tickets > > > > that > > > > > > > should cover existing limitations/improvements. > > > > > > > I would suggest creating the following tasks, at least: > > > > > > > - MVCC support > > > > > > > - Near caches > > > > > > > - Additional metrics (number of violations, number of repaired > > > > entries > > > > > > > etc) > > > > > > > - Ignite C++ (It looks like, .Net is already aware of that > > > feature) > > > > > > > - Thin clients support > > > > > > > - Perhaps, it would be useful to support different strategies > to > > > > > resolve > > > > > > > inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 10:16, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Folks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks to everyone for tips and reviews. > > > > > > >> Yardstick checked, no performance drop found. > > > > > > >> Additional measurement: RR get() is just up to 7% slower than > > > > regular > > > > > > get > > > > > > >> on real benchmarks (8 clients, 4 servers, 3 backups) > > > > > > >> Code merged to the master. > > > > > > >> "Must have" tasks created and attached to the IEP. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 PM Anton Vinogradov < > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Folks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Just a minor update. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > RunAll [1] with enabled ReadRepair proxy is almost green now > > > (~10 > > > > > > tests > > > > > > >> > left, started with 6k :)). > > > > > > >> > During the analisys, I've found some tests with > > > > > > >> > - unexpected repairs at tx caches > > > > > > >> > - inconsistent state after the test finished (different > > entries > > > > > across > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > topology) > > > > > > >> > For example, > > > > > > >> > - testInvokeAllAppliedOnceOnBinaryTypeRegistration generates > > > > > obsolete > > > > > > >> > versions on backups in case of retry, fixed [2] > > > > > > >> > - initial cache load generates not equal versions on > backups, > > > > fixed > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > >> > - testAccountTxNodeRestart causes unexpected repairs > (entries > > > have > > > > > > >> > different versions), to be investigated. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > What's next? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 1) Going to merge the solution once "RunAll with ReadRepair > > > > enabled" > > > > > > >> > becomes fully green. > > > > > > >> > 2) Going to add special check after each test which will > > ensure > > > > > caches > > > > > > >> > content after the test is consistent. > > > > > > >> > 2.1) The Same check can (should?) be injected to > > > > > > >> > awaitPartitionMapExchange() and similar methods. > > > > > > >> > 3) Update Jepsen tests with RR checks. > > > > > > >> > 4) Introduce per partition RR. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > So, the final goal is to be sure that Ignite produces only > > > > > consistent > > > > > > >> data > > > > > > >> > and to have a feature to solve consistency in case we gain > > > > > > inconsistent > > > > > > >> > state somehow. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Limitations? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Currently, RR has some limitations, but they are not related > > to > > > > real > > > > > > >> > production cases. > > > > > > >> > In case someone interested to support, for example, MVCC or > > near > > > > > > caches, > > > > > > >> > please, feel free to contribute. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [1] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/6575/head&action=Latest > > > > > > >> > [2] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/6f6ec4434095e692af209c61833a350f3013408c > > > > > > >> > [3] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656/commits/255e552b474839e470c66a77e74e3c807bc76f13 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anton Vinogradov < > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Slava, > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't > mind. > > > > > > >> >> Great news! > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with > the > > > list > > > > > of > > > > > > >> >> >> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, > > > etc? > > > > > > >> >> Not sure we should keep this at IEP until list (#4 from > > > original > > > > > > >> letter) > > > > > > >> >> is not confirmed. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> Currently, I'm checking RunAll with RR enabled to almost > each > > > get > > > > > > >> request. > > > > > > >> >> "Almost" means: readRepair = !ctx.readThrough() && > > > > > > >> >> ctx.config().getBackups() > 0 && !ctx.isNear() && > > > > > !ctx.mvccEnabled() > > > > > > >> >> For now I have 60 failed tests and amount decreasing. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations > on > > > the > > > > > IEP > > > > > > >> >> page as > > > > > > >> >> >> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an > > > > > epic/umbrella > > > > > > >> >> ticket > > > > > > >> >> >> in order to track all activities related to `Read > Repair` > > > > > feature. > > > > > > >> >> Let's do this at merge day to be sure useless issues will > not > > > be > > > > > > >> created. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:01 PM Вячеслав Коптилин < > > > > > > >> >> slava.kopti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >>> Hi Anton, > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> I will take a look at your pull request if you don't mind. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> In any way, could you please update the IEP page with the > > list > > > > of > > > > > > >> >>> constraints/limitations of the proposed approach, TODOs, > > etc? > > > > > > >> >>> For instance, I would like to see all these limitations on > > the > > > > IEP > > > > > > >> page > > > > > > >> >>> as > > > > > > >> >>> JIRA tickets. Perhaps, it would be good to create an > > > > epic/umbrella > > > > > > >> ticket > > > > > > >> >>> in order to track all activities related to `Read Repair` > > > > feature. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, > > > > > > >> >>> S. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 14:15, Anton Vinogradov < > > a...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > Igniters, > > > > > > >> >>> > I'm glad to introduce Read Repair feature [0] provides > > > > > additional > > > > > > >> >>> > consistency guarantee for Ignite. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 1) Why we need it? > > > > > > >> >>> > The detailed explanation can be found at IEP-31 [1]. > > > > > > >> >>> > In short, because of bugs, it's possible to gain an > > > > inconsistent > > > > > > >> state. > > > > > > >> >>> > We need additional features to handle this case. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > Currently we able to check cluster using Idle_verify [2] > > > > > feature, > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > >> >>> it > > > > > > >> >>> > will not fix the data, will not even tell which entries > > are > > > > > > broken. > > > > > > >> >>> > Read Repair is a feature to understand which entries are > > > > broken > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> >>> fix > > > > > > >> >>> > them. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 1) How it works? > > > > > > >> >>> > IgniteCache now able to provide special proxy [3] > > > > > > withReadRepair(). > > > > > > >> >>> > This proxy guarantee that data will be gained from all > > > owners > > > > > and > > > > > > >> >>> compared. > > > > > > >> >>> > In the case of consistency violation situation, data > will > > be > > > > > > >> recovered > > > > > > >> >>> and > > > > > > >> >>> > a special event recorded. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 3) Naming? > > > > > > >> >>> > Feature name based on Cassandra's Read Repair feature > [4], > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> >>> pretty > > > > > > >> >>> > similar. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 4) Limitations which can be fixed in the future? > > > > > > >> >>> > * MVCC and Near caches are not supported. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Atomic caches can be checked (false positive case is > > > > > possible > > > > > > on > > > > > > >> >>> this > > > > > > >> >>> > check), but can't be recovered. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Partial entry removal can't be recovered. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Entries streamed using data streamer (using not a > > > > > "cache.put" > > > > > > >> based > > > > > > >> >>> > updater) and loaded by cache.load > > > > > > >> >>> > are perceived as inconsistent since they may have > > > different > > > > > > >> versions > > > > > > >> >>> for > > > > > > >> >>> > same keys. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Only explicit get operations are supported > > > (getAndReplace, > > > > > > >> >>> getAndPut, > > > > > > >> >>> > etc can be supported in future). > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 5) What's left? > > > > > > >> >>> > * SQL/ThinClient/etc support. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Metrics (found/repaired). > > > > > > >> >>> > * Simple per-partition recovery feature able to work > in > > > the > > > > > > >> >>> background in > > > > > > >> >>> > addition to per-entry recovery feature. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > 6) Is code checked? > > > > > > >> >>> > * Pull Request #5656 [5] (feature) - has green TC. > > > > > > >> >>> > * Pull Request #6575 [6] (RunAll with the feature > > enabled > > > > for > > > > > > >> every > > > > > > >> >>> get() > > > > > > >> >>> > request) - has a limited amount of failures (because of > > data > > > > > > >> streamer, > > > > > > >> >>> > cache.load, etc). > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > Thoughts? > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663 > > > > > > >> >>> > [1] > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix > > > > > > >> >>> > [2] > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums > > > > > > >> >>> > [3] > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/27b6105ecc175b61e0aef59887830588dfc388ef/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.java#L140 > > > > > > >> >>> > [4] > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/operations/opsRepairNodesReadRepair.html > > > > > > >> >>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656 > > > > > > >> >>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
