You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@cassandra.apache.org by "sankalp kohli (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2017/11/09 20:32:02 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-13924) Continuous/Infectious Repair
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
sankalp kohli updated CASSANDRA-13924:
--------------------------------------
Description:
eI've been working on a way to keep data consistent without scheduled/external/manual repair, because for large datasets repair is extremely expensive. The basic gist is to introduce a new kind of hint that keeps just the primary key of the mutation (indicating that PK needs repair) and is recorded on replicas instead of coordinators during write time. Then a periodic background task can issue read repairs to just the PKs that were mutated. The initial performance degradation of this approach is non trivial, but I believe that I can optimize it so that we are doing very little additional work (see below in the design doc for some proposed optimizations).
My extremely rough proof of concept (uses a local table instead of HintStorage, etc) so far is [in a branch|https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/cassandra-3.11...jolynch:continuous_repair] and has a rough [design document|https://github.com/jolynch/cassandra/blob/continuous_repair/doc/source/architecture/continuous_repair.rst]. I'm working on getting benchmarks of the various optimizations, but I figured I should start this ticket before I got too deep into it.
I believe this approach is particularly good for high read rate clusters requiring consistent low latency, and for clusters that mutate a relatively small proportion of their data (since you never have to read the whole dataset, just what's being mutated). I view this as something that works _with_ incremental repair to reduce work required because with this technique we could potentially flush repaired + unrepaired sstables directly from the memtable. I also see this as something that would be enabled or disabled per table since it is so use case specific (e.g. some tables don't need repair at all). I think this is somewhat of a hybrid approach based on incremental repair, ticklers (read all partitions @ ALL), mutation based repair (CASSANDRA-8911), and hinted handoff. There are lots of tradeoffs, but I think it's worth talking about.
If anyone has feedback on the idea, I'd love to chat about it. [~bdeggleston], [~aweisberg] I chatted with you guys a bit about this at NGCC; if you have time I'd love to continue that conversation here.
was:
I've been working on a way to keep data consistent without scheduled/external/manual repair, because for large datasets repair is extremely expensive. The basic gist is to introduce a new kind of hint that keeps just the primary key of the mutation (indicating that PK needs repair) and is recorded on replicas instead of coordinators during write time. Then a periodic background task can issue read repairs to just the PKs that were mutated. The initial performance degradation of this approach is non trivial, but I believe that I can optimize it so that we are doing very little additional work (see below in the design doc for some proposed optimizations).
My extremely rough proof of concept (uses a local table instead of HintStorage, etc) so far is [in a branch|https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/cassandra-3.11...jolynch:continuous_repair] and has a rough [design document|https://github.com/jolynch/cassandra/blob/continuous_repair/doc/source/architecture/continuous_repair.rst]. I'm working on getting benchmarks of the various optimizations, but I figured I should start this ticket before I got too deep into it.
I believe this approach is particularly good for high read rate clusters requiring consistent low latency, and for clusters that mutate a relatively small proportion of their data (since you never have to read the whole dataset, just what's being mutated). I view this as something that works _with_ incremental repair to reduce work required because with this technique we could potentially flush repaired + unrepaired sstables directly from the memtable. I also see this as something that would be enabled or disabled per table since it is so use case specific (e.g. some tables don't need repair at all). I think this is somewhat of a hybrid approach based on incremental repair, ticklers (read all partitions @ ALL), mutation based repair (CASSANDRA-8911), and hinted handoff. There are lots of tradeoffs, but I think it's worth talking about.
If anyone has feedback on the idea, I'd love to chat about it. [~bdeggleston], [~aweisberg] I chatted with you guys a bit about this at NGCC; if you have time I'd love to continue that conversation here.
> Continuous/Infectious Repair
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-13924
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13924
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Repair
> Reporter: Joseph Lynch
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: CommunityFeedbackRequested
>
> eI've been working on a way to keep data consistent without scheduled/external/manual repair, because for large datasets repair is extremely expensive. The basic gist is to introduce a new kind of hint that keeps just the primary key of the mutation (indicating that PK needs repair) and is recorded on replicas instead of coordinators during write time. Then a periodic background task can issue read repairs to just the PKs that were mutated. The initial performance degradation of this approach is non trivial, but I believe that I can optimize it so that we are doing very little additional work (see below in the design doc for some proposed optimizations).
> My extremely rough proof of concept (uses a local table instead of HintStorage, etc) so far is [in a branch|https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/cassandra-3.11...jolynch:continuous_repair] and has a rough [design document|https://github.com/jolynch/cassandra/blob/continuous_repair/doc/source/architecture/continuous_repair.rst]. I'm working on getting benchmarks of the various optimizations, but I figured I should start this ticket before I got too deep into it.
> I believe this approach is particularly good for high read rate clusters requiring consistent low latency, and for clusters that mutate a relatively small proportion of their data (since you never have to read the whole dataset, just what's being mutated). I view this as something that works _with_ incremental repair to reduce work required because with this technique we could potentially flush repaired + unrepaired sstables directly from the memtable. I also see this as something that would be enabled or disabled per table since it is so use case specific (e.g. some tables don't need repair at all). I think this is somewhat of a hybrid approach based on incremental repair, ticklers (read all partitions @ ALL), mutation based repair (CASSANDRA-8911), and hinted handoff. There are lots of tradeoffs, but I think it's worth talking about.
> If anyone has feedback on the idea, I'd love to chat about it. [~bdeggleston], [~aweisberg] I chatted with you guys a bit about this at NGCC; if you have time I'd love to continue that conversation here.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@cassandra.apache.org