[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13097275#comment-13097275
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-2434:
-------------------------------------------
bq. I'm saying we can't just automatically choose another token if the user
didn't specifically say it's ok.
Oh, ok. Right. (I thought we were just bikeshedding over whether to call the
"manual override" option "use closest" or "force bootstrap.")
bq. Repair doesn't help in the case when you lost data due to a node going down
Additionally, I don't like the idea of automatically doing expensive things
like repair; it feels cleaner to not do it automatically, and allow using the
existing tool to perform one if desired, than to do it by default and have to
add an option to skip it for when that's not desirable.
> node bootstrapping can violate consistency
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-2434
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Peter Schuller
> Assignee: paul cannon
> Fix For: 1.1
>
> Attachments: 2434.patch.txt
>
>
> My reading (a while ago) of the code indicates that there is no logic
> involved during bootstrapping that avoids consistency level violations. If I
> recall correctly it just grabs neighbors that are currently up.
> There are at least two issues I have with this behavior:
> * If I have a cluster where I have applications relying on QUORUM with RF=3,
> and bootstrapping complete based on only one node, I have just violated the
> supposedly guaranteed consistency semantics of the cluster.
> * Nodes can flap up and down at any time, so even if a human takes care to
> look at which nodes are up and things about it carefully before
> bootstrapping, there's no guarantee.
> A complication is that not only does it depend on use-case where this is an
> issue (if all you ever do you do at CL.ONE, it's fine); even in a cluster
> which is otherwise used for QUORUM operations you may wish to accept
> less-than-quorum nodes during bootstrap in various emergency situations.
> A potential easy fix is to have bootstrap take an argument which is the
> number of hosts to bootstrap from, or to assume QUORUM if none is given.
> (A related concern is bootstrapping across data centers. You may *want* to
> bootstrap to a local node and then do a repair to avoid sending loads of data
> across DC:s while still achieving consistency. Or even if you don't care
> about the consistency issues, I don't think there is currently a way to
> bootstrap from local nodes only.)
> Thoughts?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
