Do we also need to repair "SYSTEM" keyspaces and "OPSCENTER" keyspaces in Cassandra, along with the keyspaces we created?
The answer is no and maybe respectively. Here's why:
System KS
The SYSTEM keyspace uses Local replication strategy so there is no need or sense in repairing it -- remember, repair is an anti-entropy mechanism through which we ensure that multiple replicas on different nodes are holding the same, latest data. Because Local strategy means there is no replication, there is no need to build merkel trees and compare them.
OpsC KS
OpsCenter uses regular reads and writes into Cassandra to store information about your cluster health / statistics / etc. These will have multiple replicas and it is possible that different nodes may get out of sync (say one node is down for some reason and exceeds the max hint window). In this case, you might see stale data if you're reading CL ONE from that node and a Repair would be beneficial. OpsC tables also have a TTL -- so you could see zombie data if for some reason tombstones don't get propagated across the cluster. But the impact of stale data in your OpsCenter statistics will not make or break your business.
So if you have the system resources to run repairs (hopefully using the OpsC repair service) on the OpsC keyspace, it won't hurt and might keep you from seeing stale data, etc. But turning these off for the OpsC keyspace may free up some system resources for your regular workload.
Related
As stated in the title, we are having a problem with our Cassandra cluster. There are 9 nodes with a replication factor of 3 using NetworkTopologyStrategy. All in the same DC and Rack. Cassandra version is 3.11.4 (planning to move on 3.11.10). Instances have 4 CPU and 32 GB RAM. (planning to move on 8 CPU)
Whenever we try to run repair on our cluster (using Cassandra Reaper on one of our nodes), we lose one node somewhere in the process. We quickly stop the repair, restart Cassandra service on the node and wait for it to join the ring. Therefore we are never able to run repair these days.
I observed the problem and realized that this problem is caused by high CPU usage on some of our nodes (exactly 3). You may see the 1 week interval graph in below. Ups and downs are caused by the usage of the app. In the mornings, it's very low.
I compared the running processes on each node and there is nothing extra on the high CPU nodes. I compared the configurations. They are identical. Couldn't find any difference.
I also realized that these nodes are the ones that take most of the traffic. See the 1 week interval graph in below. Both sent & received bytes.
I made some research. I found this thread and at the end it is recommended to set dynamic_snitch: false in Cassandra configuration. I looked at our snitch strategy which is GossipingPropertyFileSnitch. In practice, this strategy should work properly but I guess it doesn't.
The job of a snitch is to provide information about your network topology so that Cassandra can efficiently route requests.
My only observation that could be cause of this issue is there is a file called cassandra-topology.properties which is specifically told to be removed if using GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
The rack and datacenter for the local node are defined in cassandra-rackdc.properties and propagated to other nodes via gossip. If cassandra-topology.properties exists, it is used as a fallback, allowing migration from the PropertyFileSnitch.
I did not remove this file as I couldn't find any hard proof that this is causing the issue. If you have any knowledge on this or see any other reason to my problem, I would appreciate your help.
These two sentences tell me some important things about your cluster:
high CPU usage on some of our nodes (exactly 3).
I also realized that these nodes are the ones that take most of the traffic.
The obvious point, is that your replication factor (RF) is 3 (most common). The not-so-obvious, is that your data model is likely keyed on date or some other natural key which results in the same (3?) nodes serving all of the traffic for long periods of time. Running repair during those high-traffic periods will likely lead to issues.
Some things to try:
Have a look at the data model, and see if there's a better way to partition the data to distribute traffic over the rest of the cluster. This is often done with a modeling technique known as "bucketing" (adding another component...usually time based...to the partition key).
Are the partitions large? (Check with nodetool tablehistograms) And by "large," like > 10MB? It could also be that the large partitions are causing the repair operations to fail. If so, hopefully lowering resource consumption (below) will help.
Does your cluster sustain high amounts of write throughput? If so, it may also be dealing with compactions (nodetool compactionstats). You could try lowering compaction throughput (nodetool setcompactionthroughput) to free up some resources. Repair operations can also invoke compactions.
Likewise, you can also lower streaming throughput (nodetool setstreamthroughput) during repairs. Repairs will take longer to stream data, but if that's what is really tipping-over the node(s), it might be necessary.
In case you're not already, set up another instance and use Cassandra Reaper for repairs. It is so much better than triggering from cron. Plus, the UI allows for some finely-tuned config which might be necessary here. It also lets you pause and resume repairs, to pick-up where it leaves off.
We have a 13 nodes Cassandra cluster (version 3.10) with RP 2 and read/write consistency of 1.
This means that the cluster isn't fully consistent, but eventually consistent. We chose this setup to speed up the performance, and we can tolerate a few seconds of inconsistency.
The tables are set with TWCS with read-repair disabled, and we don't run full repairs on them
However, we've discovered that some entries of the data are replicated only once, and not twice, which means that when the not-updated node is queried it fails to retrieve the data.
My first question is how could this happen? Shouldn't Cassandra replicate all the data?
Now if we choose to perform repairs, it will create overlapping tombstones, therefore they won't be deleted when their time is up. I'm aware of the unchecked_tombstone_compaction property to ignore the overlap, but I feel like it's a bad approach. Any ideas?
So you've obviously made some deliberate choices regarding your client CL. You've opted to potentially sacrifice consistency for speed. You have achieved your goals, but you assumed that data would always make it to all of the other nodes in the cluster that it belongs. There are no guarantees of that, as you have found out. How could that happen? There are multiple reasons I'm sure, some of which include: networking/issues, hardware overload (I/O, CPU, etc. - which can cause dropped mutations), cassandra/dse being unavailable for whatever reasons, etc.
If none of your nodes have not been "off-line" for at least a few hours (whether it be dse or the host being unavailable), I'm guessing your nodes are dropping mutations, and I would check two things:
1) nodetool tpstats
2) Look through your cassandra logs
For DSE: cat /var/log/cassandra/system.log | grep -i mutation | grep -i drop (and debug.log as well)
I'm guessing you're probably dropping mutations, and the cassandra logs and tpstats will record this (tpstats will only show you since last cassandra/dse restart). If you are dropping mutations, you'll have to try to understand why - typically some sort of load pressure causing it.
I have scheduled 1-second vmstat output that spools to a log continuously with log rotation so I can go back and check a few things out if our nodes start "mis-behaving". It could help.
That's where I would start. Either way, your decision to use read/write CL=1 has put you in this spot. You may want to reconsider that approach.
Consistency level=1 can create a problem sometimes due to many reasons like if data is not replicating to the cluster properly due to mutations or cluster/node overload or high CPU or high I/O or network problem so in this case you can suffer data inconsistency however read repair handles this problem some times if it is enabled. you can go with manual repair to ensure consistency of the cluster but you can get some zombie data too for your case.
I think, to avoid this kind of issue you should consider CL at least Quorum for write or you should run manual repair within GC_grace_period(default is 10 days) for all the tables in the cluster.
Also, you can use incremental repair so that Cassandra run repair in background for chunk of data. For more details you can refer below link
http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/operating/repair.html or https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/tools/toolsRepair.html
Suppose I have two node cassandra cluster and they are reside on physically different data-centers. Suppose the database inside that cluster has replication factor is 2 which means every data in that database should be sync with each other. suppose this database is a massive database which have millions of records of its tables. I named those nodes centers as node1 and node2. Suppose node2 is not reliable and there was a crash on that server and take few days to fix and get the server back to up and running state. After that according to my understating there should be a gap between node1 and node2 and it may take significant time to sync node2 with node1. So need a way to measure the gap between node2 and node1 for the mean time of sync happen? After some times how should I assure that node2 is equal to node1? Please correct me if im wrong with this question according to the cassandra architechure.
So let's start with your description. 2 node cluster, which sounds fine, but 2 nodes in 2 different data centers (DCs) - bad design, but doable. Each data center should have multiple nodes to ensure your data is highly available. Anyway, that aside, let's assume you have a 2 node cluster with 1 node in each DC. The replication factor (RF) is defined at the keyspace level (not at the cluster level - each DC will have a RF setting for a particular keyspace (or 0 if not specified for a particular DC)). That being said, you can't have RF=2 for a keyspace for either of your DCs if you only have a single node in each one (RF, which is how many copies of the data that exist, can't be more than the number of nodes in the DC). So let's put that aside for now as well.
You have the possibility for DCs to become out of sync as well as nodes within a DC to become out of sync. There are multiple protections against this problem.
Consistency Level (CL)
This is a lever that you (the client) have to be able to help control how far out of sync things get. There's a trade off between availability v.s. consistency (with performance implications as well). The CL setting is configured at connection time and/or each statement level. For writes, the CL determines how many nodes must IMMEDIATELY ACKNOWLEDGE the write before giving your application the "green light" to move on (a number of nodes that you're comfortable with - knowing the more nodes you immediately require the more consistent your nodes and/or DC(s) will be, but the longer it will take and the less flexibility you have in nodes becoming unavailable without client failure). If you specify less than RF it doesn't mean that RF won't be met, it just means that they don't need to immediately acknowledge the write to move on. For reads, this setting determines how many nodes' data are compared before the result is returned (if cassandra finds a particular row doesn't match from the nodes it's comparing, it will "fix" them during the read before you get your results - this is called read repair). There are a handful of CL options by the client (e.g. ONE, QUORUM, LOCAL_ONE, LOCAL_QUOURM, etc.). Again, there is a trade-off between availability and consistency with the selected choice.
If you want to be sure your data is consistent when your queries run (when you read the data), ensure the write CL + the read CL > RF. You can ensure that's done on a LOCAL level (e.g. the DC that the read/write is occurring on, say, LOCAL_QUORUM) or globally (all DCs with QUORUM). By doing this, you'll be sure that while your cluster may be inconsistent, your results during reads will not be (i.e. the results will be consistent/accurate - which is all that anyone really cares about). With this setting you also allow some flexibility in unavailable nodes (e.g. for a 3 node DC you could have a single node be unavailable without client failure for either reads or writes).
If nodes do become out of sync, you have a few options at this point:
Repair
Repair (run by "nodetool repair") - this is a facility that you can schedule or manually run to reconcile your tables, keyspaces and/or the entire node with other nodes (either in the DC the node resides or the entire cluster). This is a "node level" command and must be run on each node to "fix" things. If you have DSE, Ops Center can run repairs in the background fixing "chunks" of data - cycling the process repetitively.
NodeSync
Similar to repair, this is a DSE specific tool similar to repair that helps keep data in sync (the newer version of repair).
Unavailable nodes:
Hinted Handoff
Cassandra has the ability to "hold onto" changes if nodes become unavailable during writes. It will hang onto changes for a specified period of time. If the unavailable nodes become available before time runs out, the changes are sent over for application. If time runs out, hint collection stops and one of the other options, above, need to be performed to catch things up.
Finally, there is no way to know how inconsistent things are (e.g. 30% inconsistent). You simply try to utilize the tools mentioned above to control consistency without completely sacrificing availability.
Hopefully that makes sense and helps.
-Jim
From the documentation:
Using the nodetool repair -pr (–partitioner-range) option repairs only the primary range for that node, the other replicas for that range still have to perform the Merkle tree calculation, causing a validation compaction. Because all the replicas are compacting at the same time, all the nodes may be slow to respond for that portion of the data.
There is probably never a time where I can accept all nodes to be slow for a certain portion of the data. But I wonder: Why does it do that (or is there maybe just a mixup with the "-par" option in the documentation?!), when nodetool repair seems to be smarter:
By default, the repair command takes a snapshot of each replica immediately and then sequentially repairs each replica from the snapshots. For example, if you have RF=3 and A, B and C represents three replicas, this command takes a snapshot of each replica immediately and then sequentially repairs each replica from the snapshots (A<->B, A<->C, B<->C) instead of repairing A, B, and C all at once. This allows the dynamic snitch to maintain performance for your application via the other replicas, because at least one replica in the snapshot is not undergoing repair.
However, the datastax blog addresses this issue:
This first phase can be intensive on disk io, however. You can mitigate this to some degree with compaction throttling (since this phase is what we call a validation compaction.) Sometimes that isn’t enough though, and some people try to mitigate this further by using the -pr (–partitioner-range) option to nodetool repair, which repairs only the primary range for that node. Unfortunately, the other replicas for that range will still have to perform the Merkle tree calculation, causing a validation compaction. This can be a problem, since all the replicas will be doing it at the same time, possibly making them all slow to respond for that portion of your data. Fortunately, there is way around this by using the -snapshot option.
That could be nice, but actually, there is no -snapshot option for nodetool repair (see the manpage, or the documentation) (has this option been removed?!)
So overall,
I cannot use nodetool repair -pr, it seems, because I always need at least to keep the system responsive enough to read/write with consistency ONE, without significant delay. (Note: We have only one data center.) Or am I missing/misunderstanding something?
Why is nodetool repair smart, keeping one node responsive, while nodetool repair -pr makes all nodes slow for a portion of data?
Where is the -snapshot option: Has it been removed, never implemented, or does it now maybe automatically work like that, also when using nodetool repair -pr?
The blog below addresses these issues:
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/repair-in-cassandra
A simple nodetool repair will not only kick off a repair on the node itself but also all the nodes that hold replicas if its ranges. While this is ok, it is very expensive and typically not an operation you'll carry out on a busy production system during peak times.
Consequently nodetool repair -pr will carry out a repair of the primary ranges on that node. You will need to run this on every node of the cluster as the blog says. Customers with large production systems will typically use this in a rolling fashion across their cluster.
On another note Datastax OpsCenter offers the repair service which runs smaller sub-range repairs all the time so although you're always repairing its going on in the background all the time at a lower resource level.
As for the snapshots, running a regular repair will invoke a snapshot as you stated, you can also invoke a snapshot yourself using nodetool snapshot
Hope this helps!
I have a two machine cluster which is running Cassandra 1.2.6. I am using a keyspace which has a replication factor of 2. But my application demands me to write to both the replicas in parallel and also let the Cassandra do the replication and hoping that Cassandra does not duplicate the key/value on the replica nodes.
For example:
I have nodes Node1 and Node2. I have a keyspace which has replication factor 2 configured on it and a column family to push key/value pairs
I use a python client (pycassa) to write to the cluster.
A key, "KeyX", hashes to Node1 and Node2. (I find out which key hashes to which servers through the node tool command. (`$nodetool getendpoints KeyspaceName ColumnFamilyName KeyHexString`)
I use a client to write (KeyX, Value) concurrently to the nodes Node1 and Node2. (In the connection pool I give only the specific server name)
When writing, I wait for one write to succeed (to the master). (Consistency level ONE)
Now, I monitor through the `$nodetool status` command the amount of disk space that the cluster uses.
I write around 100 keys each having 2MB values.
Ideally this should store around 400MB on disk with some overhead for storing keys which should be marginal compared to the value sizes that I using.
Observations:
If I do not write to all the nodes that the key hashes to, Cassandra internally handles replication and the data size is around 400MB. (200MB on each node for 100 keys with 2MB value)
If I do write to all the nodes the key hashes to, Cassandra is writing more than the expected amount of data to the disk. It is as high as 15% more. In our tests Cassandra write ~460MB instead of 400MB.
My question is, is the behavior (15% overhead) expected? Is there any configuration that we need to tweak so that Cassandra properly handles concurrent writes to all the replicas.
Thanks!
There are two possible causes of the 15% extra space that I can think of.
One is because sometimes a replica will store two copies of a column temporarily. If you write a column twice in Cassandra at slightly different times, the two copies may go into separate memtables so end up in separate SSTables on disk. At some point later, when the SSTables get merged through the compaction process, the older value will be discarded, freeing up the space. In your test you could run nodetool compact to force compaction and see if the space usage goes down.
Another possible cause depends on how you did the test when you didn't write to both nodes. If you did this at consistency level ONE, it is possible some of the writes were dropped by the other replica, so it doesn't have all the keys yet. You can be sure it does by running nodetool repair. So the space used in your first observation may not be for all the keys.
You should be aware that writing to all replicas at consistency level ONE does not guarantee that each replica holds a copy. The node that is receiving the data does not have to store it to return success for the write, even if it is a replica. It may be overloaded (in your workload, this would most likely be due to not enough I/O to write the data out) and drop the write, while succeeding in writing it to a different replica. This would cause less space to be used in your second observation, but probably isn't happening in your test since it is a relatively small amount of data.
If you need to guarantee you have two copies you should write at consistency level ALL and only write it once.