Ok thanks for your help Sylvain - much appreciated In short: I believe that most of this is me not looking clearly yesterday. There are only one / two points that i don't get. Maybe you could help me out there.
First the ~500MB thing is BS. The closer neighbors recieved around 80G and the other 2 aroung 40G. Sorry about that but I got your attention :-) My missing pieces are: 1. Why was I running out of space. I checked again and found that I started with 761G free disc space? To make it simple I will only look at one CF 'BlobStore' which is the evil large one which makes up for 80%. I greped for the streaming metadata in the log and summed it up: Total streaming file size was 279G. This comes as a real surprise but still ... 2. The file access times are strange: why does the node receive data before differencing has finished? On the repairing node I see first differencing for that one ended 13:02: grep streaming /var/log/cassandra/system.log .... INFO [AntiEntropyStage:1] 2011-05-23 13:02:52,990 AntiEntropyService.java (line 491) Performing streaming repair of 2088 ranges for #<TreeRequest manual-repair-ab469cff-98fb-46fa-9ad4-476a77860ed8, /172.24.0.190, (Smeet,ObjectRepository)> .... a listing I did on that node in the data dir shows that data files arrive much earlier ls -al *tmp* ... -rw-r--r-- 1 cass cass 146846246 May 23 12:14 BlobStore-tmp-f-16356-Data.db -rw-r--r-- 1 cass cass 701291 May 23 12:14 BlobStore-tmp-f-16357-Data.db -rw-r--r-- 1 cass cass 6628735 May 23 12:14 BlobStore-tmp-f-16358-Data.db -rw-r--r-- 1 cass cass 9991 May 23 12:14 BlobStore-tmp-f-16359-Data.db ... The youngest file for every CF was written at 12:14 which is the time the first differencing ended: INFO [AntiEntropyStage:1] 2011-05-23 12:14:36,255 AntiEntropyService.java (line 491) Performing streaming repair of 71 ranges for #<TreeRequest manual-repair-ab469cff-98fb-46fa-9ad4-476a77860ed8, /172.24.0.230, (Smeet,Rooms I thought that cassandra would stream directly from the sstables without tmp files and that these are the files received from the other nodes? 3. That's only loosely related but how could a repairing node ever receive data that is not requested because of a merkle tree diff. If you look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2670: Only one tree request was generated but still the repairing node got all that data from the other CFs. That's in fact one of the reasons why I thought that there might be a bug that sends to much data in the first place. Thanks for reading this book Daniel If your interested here's the log: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5096376/system.log.gz I also lied about total size of one node. It wasn't 320 but 280. All nodes On May 24, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Daniel Doubleday > <daniel.double...@gmx.net> wrote: >> We are performing the repair on one node only. Other nodes receive >> reasonable amounts of data (~500MB). It's only the repairing node itself >> which 'explodes'. > > That, for instance, is a bit weird. That the node on which the repair > is performed get more data is expected, since it is repair with all > it's "neighbor" while the neighbors themselves get repaired only > against that given node. But when differences between two A and B are > computed, the ranges to repair are streaming both from A to B and for > B to A. Unless A and B are widely out of sync (like A has no data and > B has tons of it), around the same amount of data should transit in > both way. So with RF=3, the node on with repair was started should get > around 4 times (up to 6 times if you have weird topology) as much data > than any neighboring node, but that's is. While if I'm correct, you > are reporting that the neighboring node gets ~500MB and the > "coordinator" gets > 700GB ?! > Honestly I'm not sure an imprecision of the merkle tree could account > for that behavior. > > Anyway, Daniel, would you be able to share the logs of the nodes (at > least the node on which repair is started) ? I'm not sure how much > that could help but that cannot hurt. > > -- > Sylvain > >> >> I must admit that I'm a noob when it comes to aes/repair. Its just strange >> that a cluster that is up and running with no probs is doing that. But I >> understand that its not supposed to do what its doing. I just hope that I >> find out why soon enough. >> >> >> >> On 23.05.2011, at 21:21, Peter Schuller <peter.schul...@infidyne.com> wrote: >> >>>> I'm a bit lost: I tried a repair yesterday with only one CF and that >>>> didn't really work the way I expected but I thought that would be a bug >>>> which only affects that special case. >>>> >>>> So I tried again for all CFs. >>>> >>>> I started with a nicely compacted machine with around 320GB of load. Total >>>> disc space on this node was 1.1TB. >>> >>> Did you do repairs simultaneously on all nodes? >>> >>> I have seen very significant disk space increases under some >>> circumstances. While I haven't filed a ticket about it because there >>> was never time to confirm, I believe two things were at play: >>> >>> (1) nodes were sufficiently out a sync in a sufficiently spread out >>> fashion that the granularity of the merkle tree (IIRC, and if I read >>> correctly, it divides the ring into up to 2^15 segments but no more) >>> became ineffective so that repair effectively had to transfer all the >>> data. at first I thought there was an outright bug, but after looking >>> at the code I suspected it was just the merkle tree granularity. >>> >>> (2) I suspected at the time that a contributing factor was also that >>> as one repair might cause a node to significantly increase it's live >>> sstables temporarily until they are compacted, another repair on >>> another node may start and start validating compaction and streaming >>> of that data - leading to disk space bload essentially being >>> "contagious"; the third node streaming from the node that was >>> temporarily bloated, will receive even more data from that node than >>> it normally would. >>> >>> We're making sure to only run one repair at a time between any hosts >>> that are neighbors of each other (meaning that at RF=3, that's 1 >>> concurrent repair per 6 nodes in the cluster). >>> >>> I'd be interested in hearing anyone confirm or deny whether my >>> understanding of (1) in particular is correct. To connect it to >>> reality: a 20 GB CF divided into 2^15 segments implies each segment is >>>> 600 kbyte in size. For CF:s with tens or hundreds of millions of >>> small rows and a fairly random (with respect to partitioner) update >>> pattern, it's not very difficult to end up in a situation where most >>> 600 kbyte chunks contain out-of-synch data. Particularly in a >>> situation with lots of dropped messages. >>> >>> I'm getting the 2^15 from AntiEntropyService.Validator.Validator() >>> which passes a maxsize of 2^15 to the MerkelTree constructor. >>> >>> -- >>> / Peter Schuller >>
