You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@hbase.apache.org by "Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/08/08 09:10:48 UTC

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-9158) Serious bug in cyclic replication

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9158?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13733216#comment-13733216 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-9158:
--------------------------------------

Maybe it can be added to doMiniBatchMutation after all. Will work on a patch tomorrow.
                
> Serious bug in cyclic replication
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-9158
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9158
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.98.0, 0.95.1, 0.94.10
>            Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.95.2, 0.94.11
>
>
> While studying the code for HBASE-7709, I found a serious bug in the current cyclic replication code. The problem is here in HRegion.doMiniBatchMutation:
> {code}
>       Mutation first = batchOp.operations[firstIndex].getFirst();
>       txid = this.log.appendNoSync(regionInfo, this.htableDescriptor.getName(),
>                walEdit, first.getClusterId(), now, this.htableDescriptor);
> {code}
> Now note that edits replicated from remote cluster and local edits might interleave in the WAL, we might also receive edit from multiple remote clusters. Hence that <walEdit> might have edits from many clusters in it, but all are just labeled with the clusterId of the first Mutation.
> Fixing this in doMiniBatchMutation seems tricky to do efficiently (imagine we get a batch with cluster1, cluster2, cluster1, cluster2, ..., in that case each edit would have to be its own batch). The coprocessor handling would also be difficult.
> The other option is create batches of Puts grouped by the cluster id in ReplicationSink.replicateEntries(...), this is not as general, but equally correct. This is the approach I would favor.
> Lastly this is very hard to verify in a unittest.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira