HBase
  1. HBase
  2. HBASE-2238

Review all transitions -- compactions, splits, region opens, log roll/splitting -- for crash-proofyness and atomicity

    Details

    • Type: Umbrella Umbrella
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Critical Critical
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      This issue is about reviewing state transitions in hbase to ensure we're sufficently hardened against crashes. This issue I see as an umbrella issue under which we'd look at compactions, splits, log splits, region opens – what else is there? We'd look at each in turn to see how we survive crash at any time during the transition. For example, we think compactions idempotent but we need to prove it so. Splits are for sure not, not at the moment (Witness disabled parents but daughters missing or only one of them available).

      Part of this issue would be writing tests that aim to break transitions.

      In light of above, here is recent off-list note from Todd Lipcon (and "another"):

      I thought a bit more last night about the discussion we were having
      regarding various HBase components doing operations on the HDFS data,
      and ensuring that in various racy scenarios that we don't have two
      region servers or masters overlapping.
      
      I came to the conclusion that ZK data can't be used to actually have
      effective locks on HDFS directories, since we can never know that we
      still have a ZK lock when we do an operation. Thus the operations
      themselves have to be idempotent, or recoverable in the case of
      multiple nodes trying to do the same thing. Or, we have to use HDFS
      itself as a locking mechanism - this is what we discussed using write
      leases essentially as locks.
      
      Since I didn't really trust myself, I ran my thoughts by "Another"
      and he concurs (see
      below). Figured this is food for thought for designing HBase data
      management to be completely safe/correct.
      
      ...
      
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Another <another@XXXXXX.com>
      Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM
      Subject: locks
      To: Todd Lipcon <todd@XXXXXXX.com>
      
      
      Short answer is no, you're right.
      Because HDFS and ZK are partitioned (in the sense that there's no
      communication between them) and there may be an unknown delay between
      acquiring the lock and performing the operation on HDFS you have no
      way of knowing that you still own the lock, like you say.
      If the lock cannot be revoked while you have it (no timeouts) then you
      can atomically check that you still have the lock and do the operation
      on HDFS, because checking is a no-op. Designing a system with no lock
      revocation in the face of failures is an exercise for the reader :)
      The right way is for HDFS and ZK to communicate to construct an atomic
      operation. ZK could give a token to the client which it also gives to
      HDFS, and HDFS uses that token to do admission control. There's
      probably some neat theorem about causality and the impossibility of
      doing distributed locking without a sufficiently strong atomic
      primitive here.
      
      Another
      

        Issue Links

          Activity

          No work has yet been logged on this issue.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              stack
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              11 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Development