One thing that we're doing for (guaranteed) immutable data is to use MD5 signatures as keys... this will also prevent duplication, and it will allow detection (if not correction) of bitrot at the app level easy.
On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Anand Somani wrote: > I should have clarified we have 3 copies, so in that case as long as 2 match > we should be ok? > > Even if there were checksumming at the SStable level, I assume it has to > check and report these errors on compaction (or node repair)? > > I have seen some JIRA open on these issues ( 47 and 1717), but if I need > something today, a read repair ( or a node repair) is the only viable option? > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Peter Schuller <peter.schul...@infidyne.com> > wrote: > > Our application space is such that there is data that might not be read for > > a long time. The data is mostly immutable. How should I approach > > detecting/solving the bitrot problem? One approach is read data and let read > > repair do the detection, but given the size of data, that does not look very > > efficient. > > Note that read-repair is not really intended to repair arbitrary > corruptions. Unless I'm mistaken, arbitrary corruption, unless it > triggers a serialization failure that causes row skipping, it's a > toss-up which version of the data is retained (or both, if the > corruption is in the key). Given the same key and column timestamp, > the tie breaker is the volumn value. So depending on whether > corruption results in a "lesser" or "greater" value, you might get the > corrupt or non-corrupt data. > > > Has anybody solved/workaround this or has any other suggestions to detect > > and fix bitrot? > > My feel/tentative opinion is that the clean fix is for Cassandra to > support strong checksumming at the sstable level. > > Deploying on e.g. ZFS would help a lot with this, but that's a problem > for deployment on Linux (which is the recommended platform for > Cassandra). > > -- > / Peter Schuller >
