You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Ivan Pavlukhina <vo...@gmail.com> on 2019/05/09 06:08:55 UTC
Re: Consistency check and fix (review request)
Hi Anton,
Meanwhile can we extend a feature description from a user point of view? It would be good to provide some use cases when it can used.
The thing that is yet understood by me is a conflict resolving. E.g. in systems inspired by Dynamo (sorry that no references, writing from phone) inconsistency is an expected system behavior and users are aware of it and choose reconciliation strategy accordingly. But in our case inconsistency is an exceptional case. And it is hard for me to imagine a case when we can resolve conflicts automatically while expecting no conflicts. Can you help me with it?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 25 Apr 2019, at 16:25, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Just an update.
> According to all your tips I decided to refactor API, logic, and approach
> (mostly everything :)),
> so, currently refactoring is in progress and you may see inconsistent PR
> state.
>
> Thanks to everyone involved for your tips, review and etc.
> I'll provide a proper presentation once refactoring will be finished.
>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:20 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Nikolay, that was the first approach
>>
>>>> I think we should allow to the administrator to enable/disable
>> Consistency check.
>> In that case, we have to introduce cluster-wide change-strategy operation,
>> since every client node should be aware of the change.
>> Also, we have to specify caches list, and for each - should we check each
>> request or only 5-th and so on.
>> Procedure and configuration become overcomplicated in this case.
>>
>> My idea that specific service will be able to use a special proxy
>> according to its own strategy
>> (eg. when administrator inside the building and boss is sleeping - all
>> operations on "cache[a,b,c]ed*" should check the consistency).
>> All service clients will have the same guarantees in that case.
>>
>> So in other words, consistency should be guaranteed by service, not by
>> Ignite.
>> Service should guarantee consistency not only using new proxy but, for
>> example, using correct isolation fo txs.
>> That's not a good Idea to specify isolation mode for Ignite, same
>> situation with get-with-consistency-check.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Anton.
>>>
>>>> Customer should be able to change strategy on the fly according to
>>> time> periods or load.
>>>
>>> I think we should allow to administrator to enable/disable Consistency
>>> check.
>>> This option shouldn't be related to application code because "Consistency
>>> check" is some kind of maintance procedure.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> В Вт, 16/04/2019 в 12:47 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет:
>>>> Andrey, thanks for tips
>>>>
>>>>>> You can perform consistency check using idle verify utility.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please point to utility's page?
>>>> According to its name, it requires to stop the cluster to perform the
>>> check?
>>>> That's impossible at real production when you should have downtime less
>>>> that some minutes per year.
>>>> So, the only case I see is to use online check during periods of
>>> moderate
>>>> activity.
>>>>
>>>>>> Recovery tool is good idea
>>>>
>>>> This tool is a part of my IEP.
>>>> But recovery tool (process)
>>>> - will allow you to check entries in memory only (otherwise, you will
>>> warm
>>>> up the cluster incorrectly), and that's a problem when you have
>>>> persisted/in_memory rate > 10:1
>>>> - will cause latency drop for some (eg. 90+ percentile) requests, which
>>> is
>>>> not acceptable for real production, when we have strict SLA.
>>>> - will not guarantee that each operation will use consistent data,
>>>> sometimes it's extremely essential
>>>> so, the process is a cool idea, but, sometime you may need more.
>>>>
>>>> Ivan, thanks for analysis
>>>>
>>>>>> why it comes as an on-demand enabled proxy but not as a mode
>>> enabled by
>>>>
>>>> some configuration property
>>>> It's a bad idea to have this feature permanently enabled, it slows down
>>> the
>>>> system by design.
>>>> Customer should be able to change strategy on the fly according to time
>>>> periods or load.
>>>> Also, we're going to use this proxy for odd requests or for every 5-th,
>>>> 10-th, 100-th request depends on the load/time/SLA/etc.
>>>> The goal is to perform as much as possible gets-with-consistency
>>> operations
>>>> without stopping the cluster and never find a problem :)
>>>>
>>>>>> As for me it will be great if we can improve consistency guarantees
>>>>
>>>> provided by default.
>>>> Once you checked backups you decreased throughput and increased latency.
>>>> This feature requred only for some financial, nuclear, health systems
>>> when
>>>> you should be additionally sure about consistency.
>>>> It's like a
>>>> - read from backups
>>>> - data modification outside the transaction
>>>> - using FULL_ASYNC instead of FULL_SYNC,
>>>> sometimes it's possible, sometimes not.
>>>>
>>>>>> 1. It sounds suspicious that reads can cause writes (unexpected
>>>>
>>>> deadlocks might be possible).
>>>> Code performs writes
>>>> - key per additional transaction in case original tx was OPTIMISTIC ||
>>>> READ_COMMITTED,
>>>> - all keys per same tx in case original tx was PESSIMISTIC &&
>>>> !READ_COMMITTED, since you already obtain the locks,
>>>> so, deadlock should be impossible.
>>>>
>>>>>> 2. I do not believe that it is possible to implement a (bugless?)
>>>>
>>>> feature which will fix other bugs.
>>>> It does not fix the bugs, it looks for inconsistency (no matter how it
>>>> happened) and reports using events (previous state and how it was
>>> fixed).
>>>> This allows continuing processing for all the entries, even
>>> inconsistent.
>>>> But, each such fix should be rechecked manually, for sure.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:39 AM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your effort for improving consistency guarantees
>>>>> provided by Ignite.
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject sounds really vital. Could you please elaborate why it
>>>>> comes as an on-demand enabled proxy but not as a mode enabled by some
>>>>> configuration property (or even as a default behavior)? How do you see
>>>>> the future development of such consistency checks? As for me it will
>>>>> be great if we can improve consistency guarantees provided by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also thinking loud a bit:
>>>>> 1. It sounds suspicious that reads can cause writes (unexpected
>>>>> deadlocks might be possible).
>>>>> 2. I do not believe that it is possible to implement a (bugless?)
>>>>> feature which will fix other bugs.
>>>>> 3. A storage (or database) product (Ignite in our case) consistency is
>>>>> not equal to a user application consistency. So, it might be that
>>>>> introduced checks are insufficient to make business applications
>>>>> happy.
>>>>>
>>>>> пн, 15 апр. 2019 г. в 19:27, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm trying tell you that this proxy can produce false positive
>>> result,
>>>>>> incorrect result and just hide bugs. What will the next solution?
>>>>>> withNoBugs proxy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can perform consistency check using idle verify utility.
>>> Recovery
>>>>>> tool is good idea but user should trigger this process, not some
>>> cache
>>>>>> proxy implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:34 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems, we already fixed all bugs caused this feature, but there
>>> is no
>>>>>>> warranty we will not create new :)
>>>>>>> This proxy is just checker that consistency is ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reaching bugless implementation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure it's possible. Once you have software it contains bugs.
>>>>>>> This proxy will tell you whether these bugs lead to inconsistency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:19 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Method name is minor problem. I still believe that there is no
>>> need
>>>>>>>> for this proxy because there are no any guarantees about bugless
>>>>>>>> implementation this functionality. Better way is reaching
>>> bugless
>>>>>>>> implementation of current functionality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:51 PM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It means also that at least method name is bad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed, already discussed with Aleksey Plekhanov.
>>>>>>>>> Decided that ".withConsistencyCheck()" is a proper name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the profit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This proxy allows to check (and fix) is there any consistency
>>>>>
>>>>> violation
>>>>>>>>> across the topology.
>>>>>>>>> The proxy will check all backups contain the same values as
>>>>>
>>>>> primary.
>>>>>>>>> So, when it's possible (you're ready to spend resources for
>>> this
>>>>>
>>>>> check)
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> will be able to read-with-consistency-check.
>>>>>>>>> This will decrease the amount of "inconsistency caused
>>>>>>>>> war/strikes/devastation" situations, which is important for
>>>>>
>>>>> financial
>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 3:58 PM Andrey Gura <agura@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anton,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what does expression "withConsistency" mean? From user's
>>>>>
>>>>> standpoint it
>>>>>>>>>> means that all operations performed without this proxy are
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> consistent. It means also that at least method name is bad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are there any guarantees that withConsistency proxy will not
>>>>>
>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>> bugs that will lead to inconsistent write after
>>> inconsistency was
>>>>>>>>>> found? I think there are no such guarantees. Bugs still are
>>>>>
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>> So I always must use withConsistency proxy because I
>>> doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>> other choice - all ways are unreliable and withConsistency
>>> just
>>>>>
>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eventually we will have two different ways for working with
>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>> values with different bugs set. What is the profit?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Anton Vinogradov <
>>> av@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've checked the tx benchmarks and found no performance
>>> drop.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, see no issues at TC results.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, seems, code ready to be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone interested, please share any objections about
>>>>>>>>>>> - public API
>>>>>>>>>>> - test coverage
>>>>>>>>>>> - implementation approach
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:46 PM Anton Vinogradov <
>>> av@apache.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a PoC, but the final solution (I hope so:) )
>>>>>
>>>>> required
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> review.
>>>>>>>>>>>> LWW means Last Write Wins, detailed explanation can be
>>> found
>>>>>
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> IEP-31.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:24 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Anton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PoC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finds correct values according to LWW strategy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, clarify what is LWW strategy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 03/04/2019 в 17:19 +0300, Anton Vinogradov
>>> пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is impossible due to a conflict between some
>>>>>
>>>>> isolation
>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get-with-consistency expectations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, it's impossible to perform
>>> get-with-consistency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get at !READ_COMMITTED transaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is that value should be cached
>>> according
>>>>>
>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isolation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, so get-with-consistency is restricted in
>>> this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem we have at case get-with-consistency
>>> after
>>>>>
>>>>> put, so
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restriction here too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the order matter. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See OperationRestrictionsCacheConsistencyTest [1]
>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>> details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/8b0b0c3e1bde93ff9c4eb5667d794dd64a8b06f0/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/consistency/OperationRestrictionsCacheConsistencyTest.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 4:54 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds useful especially for new feature
>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you do a run of all tests with
>>>>>
>>>>> cache.forConsistency(),
>>>>>>>> see if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases that fail?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 3 апр. 2019 г. в 16:17, Anton Vinogradov <
>>>>>
>>>>> av@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, at real deployment, we're faced with
>>>>>
>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the topology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that somehow we have different
>>> values for
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> key at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an extremely rare situation, but, when
>>> you
>>>>>
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terabytes of data, this can be a real problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Ignite provides a consistency guarantee,
>>> each
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> affinity
>>>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain the same value for the same key, at
>>> least
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eventually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this guarantee can be violated because of
>>> bugs,
>>>>>
>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> IEP-31
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I created the issue [2] to handle such
>>> situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main idea is to have a special
>>>>>
>>>>> cache.withConsistency()
>>>>>>>> proxy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking a fix inconsistency on get operation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've created PR [3] with following improvements
>>> (when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache.withConsistency() proxy used):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PESSIMISTIC && !READ_COMMITTED transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- checks values across the topology (under
>>> locks),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- finds correct values according to LWW
>>> strategy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- records special event in case consistency
>>>>>
>>>>> violation found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent map <Node, <K,V>> and last values
>>> <K,V>),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- enlists writes with latest value for each
>>>>>
>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>>>> key,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be written on tx.commit().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - OPTIMISTIC || READ_COMMITTED transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- checks values across the topology (not under
>>>>>
>>>>> locks, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false-positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is possible),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- starts PESSIMISTIC && SERIALIZABLE (at
>>> separate
>>>>>
>>>>> thread)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each possibly broken key and fixes it on a
>>> commit if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- original transaction performs get-after-fix
>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>> continued
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix does not conflict with isolation level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Future plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Consistency guard (special process
>>> periodically
>>>>>
>>>>> checks we
>>>>>>>>>> have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistency).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - MVCC support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Atomic caches support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thin client support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SQL support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Read-with-consistency before the write
>>> operation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Single key read-with-consistency
>>> optimization, now
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> collection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach used each time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Do not perform read-with-consistency for the
>>> key in
>>>>>
>>>>> case
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently read some time ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Consistency check and fix (review request)
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>.
Ivan,
1) Currently, we have idle_verify [1] feature allows us to check
consistency guarantee is still respected.
But, idle_verify has a big constraint, the cluster should be at idle mode
(no load).
This feature, actually, will do almost the same but allows you to have any
load.
2) Why we need this? Because of bugs.
For example, currently, we have issue [2] with consistency violation on
node fail under load.
The issue will be fixed, definitely, but, is there any guarantee we'll not
face with another?
This feature is a simple way allows you to check (and fix) consistency in
case you want such additional check.
Just an additional failover. Trust but check and recheck :)
3) Use cases?
There are two approaches:
- you can permanently rescan (in a cyclic way) all the entries you have,
using this feature, to make sure they are not broken (background case)
- you can use this feature on each or *-th request (foreground case)
[1]
https://apacheignite-tools.readme.io/docs/control-script#section-verification-of-partition-checksums
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10078
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:09 AM Ivan Pavlukhina <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Meanwhile can we extend a feature description from a user point of view?
> It would be good to provide some use cases when it can used.
>
> The thing that is yet understood by me is a conflict resolving. E.g. in
> systems inspired by Dynamo (sorry that no references, writing from phone)
> inconsistency is an expected system behavior and users are aware of it and
> choose reconciliation strategy accordingly. But in our case inconsistency
> is an exceptional case. And it is hard for me to imagine a case when we can
> resolve conflicts automatically while expecting no conflicts. Can you help
> me with it?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 25 Apr 2019, at 16:25, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Just an update.
> > According to all your tips I decided to refactor API, logic, and approach
> > (mostly everything :)),
> > so, currently refactoring is in progress and you may see inconsistent PR
> > state.
> >
> > Thanks to everyone involved for your tips, review and etc.
> > I'll provide a proper presentation once refactoring will be finished.
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:20 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nikolay, that was the first approach
> >>
> >>>> I think we should allow to the administrator to enable/disable
> >> Consistency check.
> >> In that case, we have to introduce cluster-wide change-strategy
> operation,
> >> since every client node should be aware of the change.
> >> Also, we have to specify caches list, and for each - should we check
> each
> >> request or only 5-th and so on.
> >> Procedure and configuration become overcomplicated in this case.
> >>
> >> My idea that specific service will be able to use a special proxy
> >> according to its own strategy
> >> (eg. when administrator inside the building and boss is sleeping - all
> >> operations on "cache[a,b,c]ed*" should check the consistency).
> >> All service clients will have the same guarantees in that case.
> >>
> >> So in other words, consistency should be guaranteed by service, not by
> >> Ignite.
> >> Service should guarantee consistency not only using new proxy but, for
> >> example, using correct isolation fo txs.
> >> That's not a good Idea to specify isolation mode for Ignite, same
> >> situation with get-with-consistency-check.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello, Anton.
> >>>
> >>>> Customer should be able to change strategy on the fly according to
> >>> time> periods or load.
> >>>
> >>> I think we should allow to administrator to enable/disable Consistency
> >>> check.
> >>> This option shouldn't be related to application code because
> "Consistency
> >>> check" is some kind of maintance procedure.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> В Вт, 16/04/2019 в 12:47 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет:
> >>>> Andrey, thanks for tips
> >>>>
> >>>>>> You can perform consistency check using idle verify utility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you please point to utility's page?
> >>>> According to its name, it requires to stop the cluster to perform the
> >>> check?
> >>>> That's impossible at real production when you should have downtime
> less
> >>>> that some minutes per year.
> >>>> So, the only case I see is to use online check during periods of
> >>> moderate
> >>>> activity.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Recovery tool is good idea
> >>>>
> >>>> This tool is a part of my IEP.
> >>>> But recovery tool (process)
> >>>> - will allow you to check entries in memory only (otherwise, you will
> >>> warm
> >>>> up the cluster incorrectly), and that's a problem when you have
> >>>> persisted/in_memory rate > 10:1
> >>>> - will cause latency drop for some (eg. 90+ percentile) requests,
> which
> >>> is
> >>>> not acceptable for real production, when we have strict SLA.
> >>>> - will not guarantee that each operation will use consistent data,
> >>>> sometimes it's extremely essential
> >>>> so, the process is a cool idea, but, sometime you may need more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ivan, thanks for analysis
> >>>>
> >>>>>> why it comes as an on-demand enabled proxy but not as a mode
> >>> enabled by
> >>>>
> >>>> some configuration property
> >>>> It's a bad idea to have this feature permanently enabled, it slows
> down
> >>> the
> >>>> system by design.
> >>>> Customer should be able to change strategy on the fly according to
> time
> >>>> periods or load.
> >>>> Also, we're going to use this proxy for odd requests or for every
> 5-th,
> >>>> 10-th, 100-th request depends on the load/time/SLA/etc.
> >>>> The goal is to perform as much as possible gets-with-consistency
> >>> operations
> >>>> without stopping the cluster and never find a problem :)
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As for me it will be great if we can improve consistency guarantees
> >>>>
> >>>> provided by default.
> >>>> Once you checked backups you decreased throughput and increased
> latency.
> >>>> This feature requred only for some financial, nuclear, health systems
> >>> when
> >>>> you should be additionally sure about consistency.
> >>>> It's like a
> >>>> - read from backups
> >>>> - data modification outside the transaction
> >>>> - using FULL_ASYNC instead of FULL_SYNC,
> >>>> sometimes it's possible, sometimes not.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> 1. It sounds suspicious that reads can cause writes (unexpected
> >>>>
> >>>> deadlocks might be possible).
> >>>> Code performs writes
> >>>> - key per additional transaction in case original tx was OPTIMISTIC ||
> >>>> READ_COMMITTED,
> >>>> - all keys per same tx in case original tx was PESSIMISTIC &&
> >>>> !READ_COMMITTED, since you already obtain the locks,
> >>>> so, deadlock should be impossible.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> 2. I do not believe that it is possible to implement a (bugless?)
> >>>>
> >>>> feature which will fix other bugs.
> >>>> It does not fix the bugs, it looks for inconsistency (no matter how it
> >>>> happened) and reports using events (previous state and how it was
> >>> fixed).
> >>>> This allows continuing processing for all the entries, even
> >>> inconsistent.
> >>>> But, each such fix should be rechecked manually, for sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:39 AM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your effort for improving consistency guarantees
> >>>>> provided by Ignite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The subject sounds really vital. Could you please elaborate why it
> >>>>> comes as an on-demand enabled proxy but not as a mode enabled by some
> >>>>> configuration property (or even as a default behavior)? How do you
> see
> >>>>> the future development of such consistency checks? As for me it will
> >>>>> be great if we can improve consistency guarantees provided by
> default.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also thinking loud a bit:
> >>>>> 1. It sounds suspicious that reads can cause writes (unexpected
> >>>>> deadlocks might be possible).
> >>>>> 2. I do not believe that it is possible to implement a (bugless?)
> >>>>> feature which will fix other bugs.
> >>>>> 3. A storage (or database) product (Ignite in our case) consistency
> is
> >>>>> not equal to a user application consistency. So, it might be that
> >>>>> introduced checks are insufficient to make business applications
> >>>>> happy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> пн, 15 апр. 2019 г. в 19:27, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm trying tell you that this proxy can produce false positive
> >>> result,
> >>>>>> incorrect result and just hide bugs. What will the next solution?
> >>>>>> withNoBugs proxy?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can perform consistency check using idle verify utility.
> >>> Recovery
> >>>>>> tool is good idea but user should trigger this process, not some
> >>> cache
> >>>>>> proxy implementation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:34 PM Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Seems, we already fixed all bugs caused this feature, but there
> >>> is no
> >>>>>>> warranty we will not create new :)
> >>>>>>> This proxy is just checker that consistency is ok.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> reaching bugless implementation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not sure it's possible. Once you have software it contains bugs.
> >>>>>>> This proxy will tell you whether these bugs lead to inconsistency.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:19 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Method name is minor problem. I still believe that there is no
> >>> need
> >>>>>>>> for this proxy because there are no any guarantees about bugless
> >>>>>>>> implementation this functionality. Better way is reaching
> >>> bugless
> >>>>>>>> implementation of current functionality.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:51 PM Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Andrey,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It means also that at least method name is bad.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Agreed, already discussed with Aleksey Plekhanov.
> >>>>>>>>> Decided that ".withConsistencyCheck()" is a proper name.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What is the profit?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This proxy allows to check (and fix) is there any consistency
> >>>>>
> >>>>> violation
> >>>>>>>>> across the topology.
> >>>>>>>>> The proxy will check all backups contain the same values as
> >>>>>
> >>>>> primary.
> >>>>>>>>> So, when it's possible (you're ready to spend resources for
> >>> this
> >>>>>
> >>>>> check)
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> will be able to read-with-consistency-check.
> >>>>>>>>> This will decrease the amount of "inconsistency caused
> >>>>>>>>> war/strikes/devastation" situations, which is important for
> >>>>>
> >>>>> financial
> >>>>>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 3:58 PM Andrey Gura <agura@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anton,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> what does expression "withConsistency" mean? From user's
> >>>>>
> >>>>> standpoint it
> >>>>>>>>>> means that all operations performed without this proxy are
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> consistent. It means also that at least method name is bad.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are there any guarantees that withConsistency proxy will not
> >>>>>
> >>>>> contain
> >>>>>>>>>> bugs that will lead to inconsistent write after
> >>> inconsistency was
> >>>>>>>>>> found? I think there are no such guarantees. Bugs still are
> >>>>>
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>>>> So I always must use withConsistency proxy because I
> >>> doesn't have
> >>>>>>>>>> other choice - all ways are unreliable and withConsistency
> >>> just
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sounds
> >>>>>>>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Eventually we will have two different ways for working with
> >>> cache
> >>>>>>>>>> values with different bugs set. What is the profit?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> >>> av@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've checked the tx benchmarks and found no performance
> >>> drop.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, see no issues at TC results.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, seems, code ready to be merged.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Everyone interested, please share any objections about
> >>>>>>>>>>> - public API
> >>>>>>>>>>> - test coverage
> >>>>>>>>>>> - implementation approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:46 PM Anton Vinogradov <
> >>> av@apache.org
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a PoC, but the final solution (I hope so:) )
> >>>>>
> >>>>> required
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> LWW means Last Write Wins, detailed explanation can be
> >>> found
> >>>>>
> >>>>> at
> >>>>>>>> IEP-31.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:24 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Anton.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the PoC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finds correct values according to LWW strategy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, clarify what is LWW strategy?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> В Ср, 03/04/2019 в 17:19 +0300, Anton Vinogradov
> >>> пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is impossible due to a conflict between some
> >>>>>
> >>>>> isolation
> >>>>>>>> levels
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get-with-consistency expectations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, it's impossible to perform
> >>> get-with-consistency
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> after the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get at !READ_COMMITTED transaction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is that value should be cached
> >>> according
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> isolation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> level, so get-with-consistency is restricted in
> >>> this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same problem we have at case get-with-consistency
> >>> after
> >>>>>
> >>>>> put, so
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> restriction here too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the order matter. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See OperationRestrictionsCacheConsistencyTest [1]
> >>> for
> >>>>>
> >>>>> details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/8b0b0c3e1bde93ff9c4eb5667d794dd64a8b06f0/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/consistency/OperationRestrictionsCacheConsistencyTest.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 4:54 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds useful especially for new feature
> >>> development.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you do a run of all tests with
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cache.forConsistency(),
> >>>>>>>> see if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases that fail?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 3 апр. 2019 г. в 16:17, Anton Vinogradov <
> >>>>>
> >>>>> av@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, at real deployment, we're faced with
> >>>>>
> >>>>> inconsistent
> >>>>>>>>>> state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> across
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the topology.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that somehow we have different
> >>> values for
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>> key at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different nodes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an extremely rare situation, but, when
> >>> you
> >>>>>
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> thousands of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terabytes of data, this can be a real problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Ignite provides a consistency guarantee,
> >>> each
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> affinity
> >>>>>>>>>> node
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain the same value for the same key, at
> >>> least
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> eventually.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this guarantee can be violated because of
> >>> bugs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> see
> >>>>>>>> IEP-31
> >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I created the issue [2] to handle such
> >>> situations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main idea is to have a special
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cache.withConsistency()
> >>>>>>>> proxy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking a fix inconsistency on get operation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've created PR [3] with following improvements
> >>> (when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache.withConsistency() proxy used):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PESSIMISTIC && !READ_COMMITTED transaction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- checks values across the topology (under
> >>> locks),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- finds correct values according to LWW
> >>> strategy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- records special event in case consistency
> >>>>>
> >>>>> violation found
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent map <Node, <K,V>> and last values
> >>> <K,V>),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- enlists writes with latest value for each
> >>>>>
> >>>>> inconsistent
> >>>>>>>> key,
> >>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be written on tx.commit().
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - OPTIMISTIC || READ_COMMITTED transactions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- checks values across the topology (not under
> >>>>>
> >>>>> locks, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> false-positive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is possible),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- starts PESSIMISTIC && SERIALIZABLE (at
> >>> separate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thread)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each possibly broken key and fixes it on a
> >>> commit if
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- original transaction performs get-after-fix
> >>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can be
> >>>>>>>>>> continued
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix does not conflict with isolation level.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Future plans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Consistency guard (special process
> >>> periodically
> >>>>>
> >>>>> checks we
> >>>>>>>>>> have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistency).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - MVCC support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Atomic caches support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thin client support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SQL support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Read-with-consistency before the write
> >>> operation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Single key read-with-consistency
> >>> optimization, now
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> collection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach used each time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Do not perform read-with-consistency for the
> >>> key in
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently read some time ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-31+Consistency+check+and+fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5656
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
>