When both read and write are set to quorum, I can be guaranteed the client will always get the latest value when reading.
I realize this may be a novice question, but I'm not understanding how this setup doesn't provide consistency, availability, and partitioning.
With a quorum, you are unavailable (i.e. won't accept reads or writes) if there aren't enough replicas available. You can choose to relax and read / write on lower consistency levels granting you availability, but then you won't be consistent.
There's also the case where a quorum on reads and writes guarantees you the latest "written" data is retrieved. However, if a coordinator doesn't know about required partitions being down (i.e. gossip hasn't propagated after 2 of 3 nodes fail), it will issue a write to 3 replicas [assuming quorum consistency on a replication factor of 3.] The one live node will write, and the other 2 won't (they're down). The write times out (it doesn't fail). A write timeout where even one node has writte IS NOT a write failure. It's a write "in progress". Let's say the down nodes come up now. If a client next requests that data with quorum consistency, one of two things happen:
Request goes to one of the two downed nodes, and to the "was live" node. Client gets latest data, read repair triggers, all is good.
Request goes to the two nodes that were down. OLD data is returned (assuming repair hasn't happened). Coordinator gets digest from third, read repair kicks in. This is when the original write is considered "complete" and subsequent reads will get the fresh data. All is good, but one client will have received the old data as the write was "in progress" but not "complete". There is a very small rare scenario where this would happen. One thing to note is that write to cassandra are upserts on keys. So usually retries are ok to get around this problem, however in case nodes genuinely go down, the initial read may be a problem.
Typically you balance your consistency and availability requirements. That's where the term tunable consistency comes from.
Said that on the web it's full of links that disprove (or at least try to) the Brewer's CAP theorem ... from the theorem's point of view the C say that
all nodes see the same data at the same time
Which is quite different from the guarantee that a client will always retrieve fresh information. Strictly following the theorem, in your situation, the C it's not respected.
The DataStax documentation contains a section on Configuring Data Consistency. In looking through all of the available consistency configurations, For QUORUM it states:
Returns the record with the most recent timestamp after a quorum of replicas has responded regardless of data center. Ensures strong consistency if you can tolerate some level of failure.
Note that last part "tolerate some level of failure." Right there it's indicating that by using QUORUM consistency you are sacrificing availability (A).
The document referenced above also further defines the QUORUM level, stating that your replication factor comes into play as well:
If consistency is top priority, you can ensure that a read always
reflects the most recent write by using the following formula:
(nodes_written + nodes_read) > replication_factor
For example, if your application is using the QUORUM consistency level
for both write and read operations and you are using a replication
factor of 3, then this ensures that 2 nodes are always written and 2
nodes are always read. The combination of nodes written and read (4)
being greater than the replication factor (3) ensures strong read
consistency.
In the end, it all depends on your application requirements. If your application needs to be highly-available, ONE is probably your best choice. On the other hand, if you need strong-consistency, then QUORUM (or even ALL) would be the better option.
Related
Given we have a 2x5 nodes setup (across 2 DC) and replication factor of 3, and the fact that we create views asynchronously (so we can safely retry failed operations) does using WRITE=ALL and READ=ONE make sense?
If one replica fails, how can we know the recovery time so how to pick up right retry interval and timeout?
Any of the below combination should give you correct data:
WRITE=ALL READ=ONE
WRITE=ONE READ=ALL
WRITE=LOCAL_QUORUM READ=LOCAL_QUORUM
You can tune consistency level in your application, as per load of the application.
According to me, Number 3 LOCAL_QUORUM should work better, As sometimes a node can be under high load or maybe is down. Your application will not get affected.
In case, you have more writes than READ; WRITE CL=ALL will make your application slow.
The combination of WRITE=ALL and READ=ONE is correct in the sense of consistency - after you've written to all the replicas, you can indeed read from any one and expect the latest data. However, it is bad for high availability - if any one of the 6 replicas in both DCs is down, a write cannot complete. If one of the nodes is down for an hour, you cannot do any write for an hour. In some batch-processing setups this may make sense, but it usually not acceptable behavior for interactive workloads, where high-availability is a primary concern.
If you really don't care about high availability and just want to write when all the nodes are up, then I guess WRITE=ALL could work. You can tell when all the nodes are up using "nodetool", for example. Or just retry the writes periodically.
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 have a 5 node cluster and keyspace with replication factor of 3. The nature of operations are such that writes are much more important than read, but frequency of read operations are about 10 times higher than write. To achieve consistency while improving overall performance, I chose to set consistency level for writes as ALL, and ONE for read. But this causes operations to fail if even one node is down.
Is there a method by which I can simultaneously change consistency level for (Write,Read) from (ALL,ONE) to (QUORUM, QUORUM) if one node is detected down, or if there is a query-execution-exception; plus this be done in a manner that no operations pass through a temporary phase where it sees a temporary (QUORUM, ONE) setting.
We also plan to expand to twice the capacity, 3 datacenter with 4 nodes each. Is it possible to define custom consistency levels, like, (a level of ALL in any one datacenter and ONE in others). I'm thinking that a level of (EACH_ONE) for read, coupled with above level for write will insure consistency but will allow the cluster to remain available even if a node goes down.
The flexibility is there since you can set your consistency level at a per request basis. Depending on the client you are using, there are some nice capabilities. For example, the java driver has something called a DowngradingConsistencyRetryPolicy such that if a request fails, it will be retried with the next lowest consistency level until the request succeeds. This pushes the complexity of retrying into the client so you don't have to write a bunch of code for it, it's really nice!
The java driver also allows you to configure consistency level per request with Statement#setConsistencyLevel()
As far as custom consistency levels, this is not an option available to you (without changing the cassandra source code), however I think what is made available should be sufficient.
For reads, I don't find much value in ensuring consistency between Data Centers on read. I think LOCAL_QUORUM is more than sufficient, but if you really care, you can use something like EACH_QUORUM for to ensure all datacenters agree, but that will severely impact your response time and availability. For example, if one of your datacenters goes down completely, you won't be able to do reads at all (unless downgrading).
For writes, I'd strongly recommend not using ALL in a multi datacenter set up if you care about response time and availability. Depending on your requirements, LOCAL_QUORUM should likely be more than sufficient.
While one of the benefits of Cassandra is that consistency is tunable, you can have as much strong consistency as you like, but keep in mind that Cassandra is at its best as a Highly Available, Partition Tolerant system.
A really good presentation on consistency that I think really nails a lot of these points is Christos Kalazantis' talk 'Eventual Consistency != Hopeful Consistency' which suggests that a consistency level of ONE is sufficient for a lot of use cases.
The Cassandra 2.0 documentation contains the following paragraph on Atomicity:
For example, if using a write consistency level of QUORUM with a replication factor of 3, Cassandra will replicate the write to all nodes in the cluster and wait for acknowledgement from two nodes. If the write fails on one of the nodes but succeeds on the other, Cassandra reports a failure to replicate the write on that node. However, the replicated write that succeeds on the other node is not automatically rolled back.
So, write requests are sent to 3 nodes, and we're waiting for 2 ACKs. Let's assume we only receive 1 ACK (before timeout). So it's clear, that if we read with consistency ONE, that we may read the value, ok.
But which of the following statements is also true:
It may occur, that the write has been persisted on a second node, but the node's ACK got lost? (Note: This could result in a read of the value even at read consistency QUORUM!)
It may occur, that the write will be persisted later to a second node (e.g. due to hinted handoff)? (Note: This could result in a read of the value even at read consistency QUORUM!)
It's impossible, that the write is persisted on a second node, and the written value will eventually be removed from the node via ReadRepair?
It's impossible, that the write is persisted on a second node, but it is necessary to perform a manual "undo" action?
I believe you are mixing atomicity and consistency. Atomicity is not guaranteed across nodes whereas consistency is. Only writes to a single row in a single node are atomic in the truest sense of atomicity.
The only time Cassandra will fail a write is when too few replicas are alive when the coordinator receives the request i.e it cannot meet the consistency level. Otherwise your second statement is correct. It will hint that the failed node (replica) will need to have this row replicated.
This article describes the different failure conditions.
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/how-cassandra-deals-with-replica-failure
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.