What is the best write/read strategy that is fault tolerant and fast for reads when all nodes are up?
I have 2 replicas in each datacenter and at first I was considering using QUORUM for writes and LOCAL_QUORUM for reads but reads would fail if one node crashes.
The other strategy that I came up with is to use QUORUM for writes and TWO for reads. It should work fast in normal conditions (because we will get results from the nearest nodes first) and it will work slower when any node crashes.
Is this a situation where it is recommended to use consistency level TWO or it is for some other purpose?
When would you use CL THREE?
Do you have a better strategy for consistent and fault tolerant writes/reads?
You first have to chose if you want consistency or availability. If you chose consistency, then you need to have R + W > N, where R is how many nodes you read from, W is how many nodes you write to, and N is the number of replicas.
Then you have to chose if you want reads/writes to always span multiple data centers.
Once you make those choices, you can then chose you consistency level (or it will be dictated to you).
If, for example, you decide you need consistency, and you don't want writes/reads to span multiple data centers, then you can read at LOCAL_QUORUM (which is 2 in your case) and write at ONE, or vice versa.
2 copies per dc is an odd choice. Typically you want to do LOCAL_QUORUM, with 3 replicas in each data center. That lets you read and write only using nodes within a datacenter, but allows 1 node to go down.
Related
It is said consistency level N defines number of replicas needed to acknowledge every read and write operation.The bigger that number, the more consistent result we have.
If we define that parameter as N (N < M/2), where M is cluster size, does it mean the following situation is possible :
1 data center. two concurrent writes happened successfully(they updated the same key with different values)?
And consequently, two subsequent concurrent reads return different values for the same key? Am i correct?
Yes, we can tune consistency based on requirements for read and writes. Quorum is recommended consistency level for Cassandra for single DC. we can calculate from below Quorum =N/2+1 where N is number of replica. Consistency we can set from below command
CONSISTENCY [level]
For more details on tunable consistency please refer below.
https://medium.com/dugglabs/data-consistency-in-apache-cassandra-part-1-7aee6b472fb4
https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/dml/dmlAboutDataConsistency.html
https://docs.datastax.com/en/cql/3.3/cql/cql_reference/cqlshConsistency.html
In Cassandra it is highly possible that different client applications are updating value of same key on different nodes. You can restrict this always by tuning your consistency level.
Consistency Level always depends on Replication Factor decided by you.
If RF=3 from 5 nodes DC, then Consistency level QUORUM or LOCAL_QUORUM means 2 nodes out of 3 which are having replica.
Any of the below combination should give you correct data, after tuning:
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.
Background:
I'm new to Cassandra and still trying to wrap my mind around the internal workings.
I'm thinking of using Cassandra in an application that will only ever have a limited number of nodes (less than 10, most commonly 3). Ideally each node in my cluster would have a complete copy of all of the application data. So, I'm considering setting replication factor to cluster size. When additional nodes are added, I would alter the keyspace to increment the replication factor setting (nodetool repair to ensure that it gets the necessary data).
I would be using the NetworkTopologyStrategy for replication to take advantage of knowledge about datacenters.
In this situation, how does partitioning actually work? I've read about a combination of nodes and partition keys forming a ring in Cassandra. If all of my nodes are "responsible" for each piece of data regardless of the hash value calculated by the partitioner, do I just have a ring of one partition key?
Are there tremendous downfalls to this type of Cassandra deployment? I'm guessing there would be lots of asynchronous replication going on in the background as data was propagated to every node, but this is one of the design goals so I'm okay with it.
The consistency level on reads would probably generally be "one" or "local_one".
The consistency level on writes would generally be "two".
Actual questions to answer:
Is replication factor == cluster size a common (or even a reasonable) deployment strategy aside from the obvious case of a cluster of one?
Do I actually have a ring of one partition where all possible values generated by the partitioner go to the one partition?
Is each node considered "responsible" for every row of data?
If I were to use a write consistency of "one" does Cassandra always write the data to the node contacted by the client?
Are there other downfalls to this strategy that I don't know about?
Do I actually have a ring of one partition where all possible values
generated by the partitioner go to the one partition?
Is each node considered "responsible" for every row of data?
If all of my nodes are "responsible" for each piece of data regardless
of the hash value calculated by the partitioner, do I just have a ring
of one partition key?
Not exactly, C* nodes still have token ranges and c* still assigns a primary replica to the "responsible" node. But all nodes will also have a replica with RF = N (where N is number of nodes). So in essence the implication is the same as what you described.
Are there tremendous downfalls to this type of Cassandra deployment?
Are there other downfalls to this strategy that I don't know about?
Not that I can think of, I guess you might be more susceptible than average to inconsistent data so use C*'s anti-entropy mechanisms to counter this (repair, read repair, hinted handoff).
Consistency level quorum or all would start to get expensive but I see you don't intend to use them.
Is replication factor == cluster size a common (or even a reasonable)
deployment strategy aside from the obvious case of a cluster of one?
It's not common, I guess you are looking for super high availability and all your data fits on one box. I don't think I've ever seen a c* deployment with RF > 5. Far and wide RF = 3.
If I were to use a write consistency of "one" does Cassandra always
write the data to the node contacted by the client?
This depends on your load balancing policies at the driver. Often we select token aware policies (assuming you're using one of the Datastax drivers), in which case requests are routed to the primary replica automatically. You could use round robin in your case and have the same effect.
The primary downfall will be increased write costs at the coordinator level as you add nodes. The maximum number of replicas written to I've seen is around 8 (5 for other data centers and 3 for local replicas).
In practice this will mean a reduced stability while performing large or batched writes (greater than 1mb) or a lower per node write TPS.
The primary advantage is you can do a lot of things that'd normally be awful and impossible to do. Want to use secondary indexes? probably will work reasonably well (assuming cardinality and partition size doesn't become your bottleneck there). Want to add a custom UDF that does GroupBy or use very large IN queries it'll probably work.
It is as #Phact mentions not a common usage pattern and I primarily saw it used with DSE Search on low write throughput use cases that had requirements for 'single node' features from Solr, but for those same use cases with pure Cassandra you'd get some benefits on the read side and be able to do expensive queries that are normally impossible in a more distributed cluster.
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.
I am new to Cassandra and I would like to learn more about Cassandra's racks and structure.
Suppose I have around 70 column families in Cassandra and two AWS2 instances.
How many Data Centres will be used?
How many nodes will each rack have?
Is it possible to divide a column family in multiple keyspaces?
The intent of making Cassandra aware of logical racks and data centers is to provide additional levels of fault tolerance. The idea (as described in this document, under the "Network Topology Strategy") is that the application should still be able to function if one rack or data center goes dark. Essentially, Cassandra...
places replicas in the same data center by walking the ring clockwise
until reaching the first node in another rack. NetworkTopologyStrategy
attempts to place replicas on distinct racks because nodes in the same
rack (or similar physical grouping) often fail at the same time due to
power, cooling, or network issues.
In this way, you can also query your data by LOCAL_QUORUM, in which QUORUM ((replication_factor / 2) + 1) is only computed from the nodes present in the same data center as the coordinator node. This reduces the effects of inter-data center latency.
As for your questions:
How many data centers are used are entirely up to you. If you only have two AWS instances, putting them in different logical data centers is possible, but only makes sense if you are planning to use consistency level ONE. As-in, if one instance goes down, your application only needs to worry about finding one other replica. But even then, the snitch can only find data on one instance, or the other.
Again, you can define the number of nodes that you wish to have for each rack. But as I indicated with #1, if you only have two instances, there isn't much to be gained by splitting them into different data centers or racks.
I do not believe it is possible to divide a column family over multiple keyspaces. But I think I know what you're getting at. Each keyspace will be created on each instance. As you have 2 instances, you will be able to specify a replication factor of 1 or 2. If you had 3 instances, you could set a replication factor of 2, and then if you lost 1 instance you would still have access to all the data. As you only have 2 instances, you need to be able to handle one going dark, so you will want to make sure both instances have a copy of every row (replication factor of 2).
Really, the logical datacenter/rack structure becomes more-useful as the number of nodes in your cluster increases. With only two, there is little to be gained by splitting them with additional logical barriers. For more information, read through the two docs I linked above:
Apache Cassandra 2.0: Data Replication
Apache Cassandra 2.0: Snitches
I have a Cassandra cluster with 4 nodes, is it possible to read the data only from the available nodes, except the node that is down, is this possible? or is there any configurable property to handle this type of scenario.
Thanks
You can do this with replication, yes. There are a few things you need:
Set replication factor at least 2. The more replicas, the more failed nodes you can cope with. However, the more replicas you have the worse your performance is since more nodes duplicate the work.
Choose an appropriate consistency level. The consistency level (CL) determines how many nodes need to be involved with a read or write operation. CL.ALL means use all replicas so you can't tolerate any failures. CL.ONE means use just one node. CL.QUORUM means a majority of replicas (RF/2+1)
You can read and write data from any node, not just ones containing that data. If you use a client library like Hector, you should tell it about all nodes and it will avoid ones that are down, as well as load balance amongst the available nodes.