Uploaded image for project: 'Cassandra'
  1. Cassandra
  2. CASSANDRA-13691

Fix incorrect [2.1 <— 3.0] serialization of counter cells with pre-2.1 local shards



    • Normal


      We stopped generating local shards in C* 2.1, after CASSANDRA-6504 (Counters 2.0). But it’s still possible to have counter cell values
      around, remaining from 2.0 times, on 2.1, 3.0, 3.11, and even trunk nodes, if they’ve never been overwritten.

      In 2.1, we used two classes for two kinds of counter columns:
      CounterCell class to store counters - internally as collections of CounterContext blobs, encoding collections of (host id, count, clock) tuples
      CounterUpdateCell class to represent unapplied increments - essentially a single long value; this class was never written to commit log, memtables, or sstables, and was only used inside Mutation object graph - in memory, and marshalled over network in cases when counter write coordinator and counter write leader were different nodes
      3.0 got rid of CounterCell and CounterUpdateCell, among other Cell classes. In order to represent these unapplied increments - equivalents of 2.1 CounterUpdateCell - in 3.0 we encode them as regular counter columns, with a ‘special’ CounterContext value. I.e. a counter context with a single local shard. We do that so that we can reuse local shard reconcile logic (summing up) to seamlessly support counters with same names collapsing to single increments in batches. See UpdateParameters.addCounter() method comments here for details. It also assumes that nothing else can generate a counter with local shards.

      It works fine in pure 3.0 clusters, and in mixed 2.1/3.0 clusters, assuming that there are no counters with legacy local shards remaining from 2.0 era. It breaks down badly if there are.

      LegacyLayout.serializeAsLegacyPartition() and consequently LegacyCell.isCounterUpdate() - classes responsible for serializing and deserialising in 2.1 format for compatibility - use the following logic to tell if a cell of COUNTER kind is a regular final counter or an unapplied increment:

      private boolean isCounterUpdate()
          // See UpdateParameters.addCounter() for more details on this
          return isCounter() && CounterContext.instance().isLocal(value);

      CounterContext.isLocal() method here looks at the first shard of the collection of tuples and returns true if it’s a local one.

      This method would correctly identify a cell generated by UpdateParameters.addCounter() as a counter update and serialize it correctly as a 2.1 CounterUpdateCell. However, it would also incorrectly flag any regular counter cell that just so happens to have a local shard as the first tuple of the counter context as a counter update. If a 2.1 node as a coordinator of a read requests fetches such a value from a 3.0 node, during a rolling upgrade, instead of the expected CounterCell object it will receive a CounterUpdateCell, breaking all the things. In the best case scenario it will cause an assert in AbstractCell.reconcileCounter() to be raised.

      To fix the problem we must find an unambiguous way, without false positives or false negatives, to represent and identify unapplied counter updates on 3.0 side.


        Issue Links



              aleksey Aleksey Yeschenko
              aleksey Aleksey Yeschenko
              Aleksey Yeschenko
              Sylvain Lebresne
              0 Vote for this issue
              3 Start watching this issue