Hi I was trying out different configuration using the site
https://www.ecyrd.com/cassandracalculator/
But I could not understand the following results show for configuration
Cluster size 3
Replication Factor 2
Write Level 1
Read Level 1
You can survive the loss of no nodes without data loss.
For reference I have seen the question Cassandra loss of a node
But it still does not help to understand why Write level 1 will with replication 2 would make my cassandra cluster not survive the loss of no node without data loss?
A write request goes to all replica nodes and the even if 1 responds back , it is a success, so assuming 1 node is down, all write request will go to the other replica node and return success. It will be eventually consistent.
Can someone help me understand with an example.
I guess what the calculator is working with is the worst case scenario.
You can survive the loss of one node if your data is available redundantly on two out of three nodes. The thing with write level ONE is, that there is no guarantee that the data is actually present on two nodes right after your write was acknowledged.
Let's assume the coordinator of your write is one of the nodes holding a copy of the record you are writing. With write level ONE you are telling the cluster to acknowledge your write as soon as the write was committed to one of the two nodes that should hold the data. The coordinator might do that before even attempting to contact the other node (to boost latency percieved by the client). If in that moment, right after acknowledging the write but before attempting to contact the second node the coordinator node goes down and cannot be brought back, then you lost that write and the data with it.
When you read or write data, Cassandra computes the hash token for the data and distributes to respective nodes. When you have 3 node cluster with replication factor as 2 means your data is stored in 2 nodes. So at a point when 2 nodes are down which is responsible for a token A and this token is not part of node 3, eventually even you have one node you will still have TokenRangeOfflineException.
The point is we need replicas(Token) and not the nodes. Also see the similar question answered here.
This is the case because the write level is 1. And if the your application is writing on 1 node only (and waiting data to get eventually consistent/sync, which is going to take non-zero time), then data can get lost if that one server itself is lost before sync could happen
Related
Suppose I have a Cassandra cluster with 3 nodes (node 0, node 1 and node 2) and replication factor of 1.
Suppose that I want to insert a new data to the cluster and the partition key directs the new row to node 1. However, node 1 is temporarily unavailable. In this case, will the new data be inserted to node 0 or node 2 (although it should not be placed there according to the partition key)?
In Cassandra, Replication Factor (RF) determines how many copies of data will ultimately exist and is set/configured at the keyspace layer. Again, its purpose is to define how many nodes/copies should exist if things are operating "normally". They could receive the data several ways:
During the write itself - assuming things are functioning "normally" and everything is available
Using Hinted Handoff - if one/some of the nodes are unavailable for a configured amount of time (< 3 hours), cassandra will automatically send the data to the node(s) when they become available again
Using manual repair - "nodetool repair" or if you're using DSE, ops center can repair/reconcile data for a table, keyspace, or entire cluster (nodesync is also a tool that is new to DSE and similar to repair)
During a read repair - Read operations, depending on the configurable client consistency level (described next) can compare data from multiple nodes to ensure accuracy/consistency, and fix things if they're not.
The configurable client consistency level (CL) will determine how many nodes must acknowledge they have successfully received the data in order for the client to be satisfied to move on (for writes) - or how many nodes to compare with when data is read to ensure accuracy (for reads). The number of nodes available must be equal to or greater than the client CL number specified or the application will error (for example it won't be able to compare a QUORUM level of nodes if a QUORUM number of nodes are not available). This setting does not dictate how many nodes will receive the data. Again, that's the RF keyspace setting. That will always hold true. What we're specifying here is how many must acknowledge each write or compare for each read in order the client to be happy at that moment. Hopefully that makes sense.
Now...
In your scenario with a RF=1, the application will receive an error upon the write as the single node that should receive the data (based off of a hash algorithm) is down (RF=1 again means only a single copy of the data will exist, and that single copy is determined by a hash algorithm to be the unavailable node). Does that make sense?
If you had a RF=2 (2 copies of data), then one of the two other nodes would receive the data (again, the hash algorithm picks the "base" node, and then another algorithm will chose where the cop(ies) go), and when the unavailable node became available, it would eventually receive the data (either by hinted handoff or repair). If you chose a RF=3 (3 copies) then the other 2 nodes would get the data, and again, once the unavailable node became available, it would eventually receive the data (either by hinted handoff or repair).
FYI, if you ever want to know where a piece of data will/does exist in a Cassandra cluster, you can run "nodetool getendpoints". The output will be where all copies will/do reside.
I have a cassandra cluster with three nodes under normal circumstances. When I send write request cluster from node.js, I want all nodes to write back to me after writing, while reading, i want to be able to read which node I am connected to. I want this setup to continue when one of the three nodes has died. I chose replication factor= 3 consistency=2
How should I implement a configuration. Is the config implement true ?
With my respects...
So I unfortunately have no real clue about the provided numbers from the node JS driver, but I know something about the consistency levels, which I suspect you are using in the background, assuming that you are using this driver: http://datastax.github.io/nodejs-driver/.
Just a basic thing: The nodes don't write back to you directly, but your query is sent to one node, the coordinator of that query, which then distributes the query in your cluster according to your consistency level specifications (at least if it's a simple query, more complex destribution logic applies in case of batch queries). The coordinator then reports back to you when the query is executed.
Whether your requirements can be fulfilled at all depends on the replication factor you chose. The problem here is that cassandra only knows so many of them. The options for writing are: all (which at first looks what you want), quorum (which is also an option), one and any. So let's assume you choose all, because you want to write to all replicas. That's totally fine, but if one of the nodes goes down, there will be failing writes, because one of the replicas could not be updated. In case you are actually using replication factor 3, you can fallback to write with quorum, which is 2 nodes in this case. What should happen if another node fails? I know, very unlikely, but I've seen it in production, so it happens from time to time. Should the single last node be updated in this case? Then you need to fallback to consistency level 1. Everything fine.
But what if you choose the replication factor to be 5? Well, there is no way of saying: I want 4 nodes. You can only have a quorum in case of a failure of one node, and that would be 3, not 4. And the next fallback would be 1 and not 2.
The final question is: if you lose one node and you do a fallbak in the writing part, what happens when your node comes back (assuming that there are lost updates because some of the hinted handoffs are already discarded)? The reading part of your application can always read stale data because you always only read from a single node. It seems to me like you are trying to compensate for that in the write part. My personal idea would be using quorum when reading and writing, this way it's guaranteed that you read current data and a single node can go down (with replication factor 5 it's even 2 nodes). Also keep in mind that when you write to a node, cassandra will always attempt to write to the replicas in the background, so it tries to keep your data up to date. The risk of reading stale data even with a consistency level pair of one-one can be acceptable if you really need the speed.
Assumptions: RF = 3
In some video on the Internet about Consistency level speaker says that CL = ONE is better then CL = ANY because when we use CL = ANY coordinator will be happy to store only hint(and data)(we are assuming here that all the other nodes with corresponding partition key ranges are down) and we can potentially lose our data due to coordinator's failure. But wait a minute.... as I understand it, if we used CL = ONE and for example we had only one(of three) available node for this partition key, we would have only one node with inserted data. Risk of loss is the same.
But I think we should assume equal situations - all nodes for particular token is gone. Then it's better to discard write operation then write with such a big risk of coordinator's loss.
CL=ANY should probably never be used on a production server. Writes will be unavailable until the hint is written to a node owning that partition because you can't read data when its in a hints log.
Using CL=ONE and RF=3 with two nodes down, you would have data stored in both a) the commit log and memtable on a node and b) the hints log. These are likely different nodes, but they could be the same 1/3 of the time. So, yes, with CL=ONE and CL=ANY you risk complete loss of data with a single node failure.
Instead of ANY or ONE, use CL=QUORUM or CL=LOCAL_QUORUM.
The thing is the hints will just be stored for 3 hours by default and for longer times than that you have to run repairs. You can repair if you have at least one copy of this data on one node somewhere in the cluster (hints that are stored on coordinator don't count).
Consistency One guarantees that at least one node in the cluster has it in commit log no matter what. Any is in worst case stored in hints of coordinator (other nodes can't access it) and this is stored by default in a time frame of 3 hours. After 3 hours pass by with ANY you are loosing data if other two instances are down.
If you are worried about the risk, then use quorum and 2 nodes will have to guarantee to save the data. It's up to application developer / designer to decide. Quorum will usually have slightly bigger latencies on write than One. But You can always add more nodes etc. should the load dramatically increase.
Also have a look at this nice tool to see what impacts do various consistencies and replication factors have on applications:
https://www.ecyrd.com/cassandracalculator/
With RF 3, 3 nodes in the cluster will actually get the write. Consistency is just about how long you want to wait for response from them ... If you use One, you will wait until one node has it in commit log. But the coordinator will actually send the writes to all 3. If they don't respond coordinator will save the writes into hints.
Most of the time any in production is a bad idea.
I want to clarify very basic concept of replication factor and consistency level in Cassandra. Highly appreciate if someone can provide answer to below questions.
RF- Replication Factor
RC- Read Consistency
WC- Write Consistency
2 cassandra nodes (Ex: A, B) RF=1, RC=ONE, WC=ONE or ANY
can I write data to node A and read from node B ?
what will happen if A goes down ?
3 cassandra nodes (Ex: A, B, C) RF=2, RC=QUORUM, WC=QUORUM
can I write data to node A and read from node C ?
what will happen if node A goes down ?
3 cassandra nodes (Ex: A, B, C) RF=3, RC=QUORUM, WC=QUORUM
can I write data to node A and read from node C ?
what will happen if node A goes down ?
Short summary: Replication factor describes how many copies of your data exist. Consistency level describes the behavior seen by the client. Perhaps there's a better way to categorize these.
As an example, you can have a replication factor of 2. When you write, two copies will always be stored, assuming enough nodes are up. When a node is down, writes for that node are stashed away and written when it comes back up, unless it's down long enough that Cassandra decides it's gone for good.
Now say in that example you write with a consistency level of ONE. The client will receive a success acknowledgement after a write is done to one node, without waiting for the second write. If you did a write with a CL of ALL, the acknowledgement to the client will wait until both copies are written. There are very many other consistency level options, too many to cover all the variants here. Read the Datastax doc, though, it does a good job of explaining them.
In the same example, if you read with a consistency level of ONE, the response will be sent to the client after a single replica responds. Another replica may have newer data, in which case the response will not be up-to-date. In many contexts, that's quite sufficient. In others, the client will need the most up-to-date information, and you'll use a different consistency level on the read - perhaps a level ALL. In that way, the consistency of Cassandra and other post-relational databases is tunable in ways that relational databases typically are not.
Now getting back to your examples.
Example one: Yes, you can write to A and read from B, even if B doesn't have its own replica. B will ask A for it on your client's behalf. This is also true for your other cases where the nodes are all up. When they're all up, you can write to one and read from another.
For writes, with WC=ONE, if the node for the single replica is up and is the one you're connect to, the write will succeed. If it's for the other node, the write will fail. If you use ANY, the write will succeed, assuming you're talking to the node that's up. I think you also have to have hinted handoff enabled for that. The down node will get the data later, and you won't be able to read it until after that occurs, not even from the node that's up.
In the other two examples, replication factor will affect how many copies are eventually written, but doesn't affect client behavior beyond what I've described above. The QUORUM will affect client behavior in that you will have to have a sufficient number of nodes up and responding for writes and reads. If you get lucky and at least (nodes/2) + 1 nodes are up out of the nodes you need, then writes and reads will succeed. If you don't have enough nodes with replicas up, reads and writes will fail. Overall some QUORUM reads and writes can succeed if a node is down, assuming that that node is either not needed to store your replica, or if its outage still leaves enough replica nodes available.
Check out this simple calculator which allows you to simulate different scenarios:
http://www.ecyrd.com/cassandracalculator/
For example with 2 nodes, a replication factor of 1, read consistency = 1, and write consistency = 1:
Your reads are consistent
You can survive the loss of no nodes.
You are really reading from 1 node every time.
You are really writing to 1 node every time.
Each node holds 50% of your data.
1 cluster, 3 nodes, in 2 physical locations, grouped in 2 racks
RF 2
PropertyFileSnitch
CL QUORUM
The problem is:
First node's (in RAC1) replication is pointed to third node from RAC2 and does not change if that node is down, reads and writes fails.
If I start back third node and shut down second node, reads and writes works.
Both second and third node replicate to first node, and if first node is down, reads and writes also fails.
The question is:
Is it possible to make it automatically detect dead nodes and point replication to active detected nodes?
If first node is down, second and third node to replicate data between each other
If second or third node is down, first node should detect what is active and replicate to it
Update1:
Made some tests:
Shut down first node - reads from second and third node fails (Unable to complete request: one or more nodes were unavailable.)
Shut down second node - reads from first and third node works
Shut down third node - reads from first and second node fails
Very strange ...
Update2:
I think I found the answer. How it is now: 3 nodes, RF 2, writes and reads has CL 2. if one replica is down, reads and writes fails (I tested selecting different keys, some succeeded when one node was down, and fails when another is down)
Now I am thinking to do this: move all nodes to one rack, change RF to 3, for reads and writes I will use CL 2 (two replications will be required for write to succeed, and third will be made in background). So now there will be 3 replicas, if one fails, CL 2 will succeed anyway.
Am I right?
Will writes succeed if there are 2 nodes active, replication factor is 3, and consistency level for current write operation is 2?
Update3:
Yes, I think I'm on the right way. Same question here
From the screenshot it can assumed that it is Opscenter.
In Opscenter there is special feature called alerts. It will help you in detecting dead node.
Now coming to question of node down & read write fails, basically these thing depends in read/write consistency level. Go through consistency levels, you will be able to find out the solution on your own.
UPDATE:
May be you might find this blog interesting.
The only time Cassandra will fail is when too few replicas are alive when the coordinator receives the request. This might be the reason behind your strange situation
You want to have all three nodes in RAC1 with a replication factor of 3 and use QUORUM for your reads/writes. This will ensure that data is always persisted to two nodes, reads will be consistent, and there can be one failed node without downtime or data loss. If you don't care about reads always being consistent, i.e. stale data is allowed sometimes, you can make reads more performant by using ONE for reads.