Skip to content

CEP-45: Incremental repair for mutation tracking#4696

Open
aweisberg wants to merge 46 commits intoapache:cep-45-mutation-trackingfrom
aweisberg:21098
Open

CEP-45: Incremental repair for mutation tracking#4696
aweisberg wants to merge 46 commits intoapache:cep-45-mutation-trackingfrom
aweisberg:21098

Conversation

@aweisberg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

aparnanaik0522 and others added 30 commits March 18, 2026 16:23
…ce shard for keyspace distributed_test_keyspace, but it already exists on bounce
…marking sstables repaired to effect the migration
…ntirely inside migrated ranges or entirely outside, but not both
catch (RuntimeException e)
{
allSucceeded = false;
error = Throwables.merge(error, e);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll convert timeouts to exceptions so it can be exercised.

catch (Exception e)
{
logger.error("Error during mutation tracking repair", e);
resultPromise.tryFailure(e);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The errors are put in resultPromise and don't get surfaced by allowing them to bubble up. To make this branch fire I could let exceptions bubble up and then get handled here. Would be less exception handling in general and then it would show up as tested.

I'll do that.

if (allRanges.isEmpty())
{
logger.info("No common ranges to repair for keyspace {}", keyspace);
return new AsyncPromise<CoordinatedRepairResult>().setSuccess(CoordinatedRepairResult.create(List.of(), List.of()));
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

if (overlappingShards.isEmpty())
{
completionFuture.setSuccess(null);
return;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Converted to a checkState

public void onFailure(InetAddressAndPort from, RequestFailure failure)
{
fail(new RuntimeException(
String.format("Mutation tracking sync failed: participant %s returned failure %s", from, failure.reason)));
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@aweisberg aweisberg Apr 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a test case that sends an exception through here

Shard currentShard = getCurrentShard(state.shard.range);
if (currentShard != state.shard)
{
failWithTopologyChange();
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Coverage tooling indicates this might not be tested.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@aweisberg aweisberg Apr 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Topology changes aren't supported yet https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-20386

I'll take a look and see if I can at least induce one to exercise this failure path.

It might end up being more unit test then end to end test.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added an end to end test. Seems like we don't error out on topology changes and more or less do it.

* their current witnessed offsets. This establishes a happens-before relationship: the
* participant's response contains offsets captured after receiving this request, which is
* sent after the repair starts.
*
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit:

Suggested change
*
* <p>

inMigrationPendingRange = migrationInfo.isRangeInPendingMigration(metadata().id,
first.getToken(),
last.getToken());
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Could replace the above w/

KeyspaceMigrationInfo migrationInfo = ClusterMetadata.current().mutationTrackingMigrationState.getKeyspaceInfo(metadata().keyspace);
boolean inMigrationPendingRange = migrationInfo != null && migrationInfo.isRangeInPendingMigration(metadata().id, first.getToken(), last.getToken());

// when incremental repair streams SSTables that were written before tracking was enabled.
Preconditions.checkState(!cfstore.metadata().replicationType().isTracked()
|| ClusterMetadata.current().mutationTrackingMigrationState
.getKeyspaceInfo(cfstore.metadata().keyspace) != null);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Might be nice to have something like an isMigrating(String) on MTMS, but just a matter of taste I guess.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll update it to use a helper.

{
Preconditions.checkState(!cfstore.metadata().replicationType().isTracked());
// Tracked tables may legitimately use this path during migration from untracked to tracked,
// when incremental repair streams SSTables that were written before tracking was enabled.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this mean that during migration to tracked, we'd expect these SSTables to have no coordinator log offsets then? Is that worth asserting?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It shouldn't matter for imports, since the keyspace being currently tracked means we'll avoid this method.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No we will actually hit this method during migration. The sstables might actually have offsets in them since tracked writes have already started and the incremental repair starts after.

// flag on the mutation hasn't been set yet at this point — it's set later in
// applyMutation() — so we check the handler type instead.
if (this instanceof ReadRepairVerbHandler)
return metadata;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: I guess the other option would be something like a handlesReadRepair() method that only ReadRepairVerbHandler overrides, but it's literally called ReadRepairVerbHandler, and we probably won't have something else handle RR mutations.

In any case, I'm remembering blocking RR is going to be reworked for migration anyway, so ignore me :D

@Nonnull Collection<String> columnFamilies)
{
Iterable<TableMetadata> tables;
if (!columnFamilies.isEmpty())
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: This is almost a case where null would be nice to indicate "all tables", in the sense that an empty collection might be more likely than null to indicate incorrect argument construction.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is an artifact of how RepairOption treats the empty set as "all tables". I'll update this method to use null and then fix it at the caller to convert an empty set to null.

RepairTask task = new PreviewRepairTask(this, state.id, neighborsAndRanges.filterCommonRanges(state.keyspace, cfnames), neighborsAndRanges.shouldExcludeDeadParticipants, cfnames);
return task.perform(executor, validationScheduler)
.<Pair<CoordinatedRepairResult, Supplier<String>>>map(r -> Pair.create(r, task::successMessage))
.addCallback((s, f) -> executor.shutdown());
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This block here is duplicated 3 more times below. The original code here avoided that by returning after the if/else stuff, but we could just delegate to a submitRepairTask() or something similar.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a helper.

RepairJobDesc desc = new RepairJobDesc(parentSession, TimeUUID.Generator.nextTimeUUID(),
keyspace, "Mutation Tracking Sync", List.of(range));
MutationTrackingSyncCoordinator syncCoordinator = new MutationTrackingSyncCoordinator(
coordinator.ctx, desc, commonRange.endpoints, metadata);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

MutationTrackingSyncCoordinator syncCoordinator =
    new MutationTrackingSyncCoordinator(coordinator.ctx, desc, commonRange.endpoints, metadata);

...might be a little easier on the eyes.

Pair<CoordinatedRepairResult, Supplier<String>> irPair = Pair.create(irResult, incrementalTask::successMessage);
mtTask.perform(executor, validationScheduler)
.addCallback(
mtResult -> result.trySuccess(irPair),
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to handle partial failure here? (i.e. Do we just return the irPair result if the MT task partially fails?)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A failure at any step is a failure of the entire thing since we didn't complete the entire repair. That is what this should be doing which is return failure immediately once any step fails.

* Determines if this keyspace should use mutation tracking incremental repair.
* Returns true if:
* - Keyspace uses mutation tracking replication, OR
* - Keyspace is currently migrating (either direction)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Not strictly true if migrating to untracked?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll address that in the follow up where I am changing migration from tracked to untracked to be instant.

for (Range<Token> range : commonRange.ranges)
{
RepairJobDesc desc = new RepairJobDesc(parentSession, TimeUUID.Generator.nextTimeUUID(),
keyspace, "Mutation Tracking Sync", List.of(range));
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Table name is meaningless here, right?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes but I figured for debugging purposes it's clearer to not leave it empty.


if (overlappingShards.isEmpty())
{
completionFuture.setSuccess(null);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Might be nice to have a DEBUG level log message to indicate this happened.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Converted it a checkState

}
// Always include the local node
liveHostIds.add(metadata.directory.peerId(ctx.broadcastAddressAndPort()).id());
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: If we just build the liveHostIds at construction time, could we make it final?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes I'll make it a final ImmutableSet

if (completionFuture.isDone())
return;

recaptureTargets();
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like this is called from updateReplicatedOffsets(), but does that mean we keep expanding the targets after the initial round of sync requests? (i.e. If there are ongoing writes, can this cause the whole IR to time out?)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah this shouldn't occur on offsets received. I missed this coming in from the original PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants