| commit | 7f13011c5da7ced49d851d4573839392728078d2 | [log] [tgz] |
|---|---|---|
| author | Stefan Miklosovic <smiklosovic@apache.org> | Thu Aug 22 15:07:27 2024 +0200 |
| committer | Stefan Miklosovic <smiklosovic@apache.org> | Fri Aug 23 10:28:23 2024 +0200 |
| tree | 5f5f4110054e98e684366c24d6a292ae137621d6 | |
| parent | d216a71049ab52f522e5ed7c64423bfa3f6658e8 [diff] |
enrich .asf.yaml patch by Stefan Miklosovic; reviewed by Michael Semb Wever for CASSANDRA-19854
The project aims to generate reproducible workloads that are as close to real-life as possible, while being able to efficiently verify the cluster state against the model without pausing the workload itself.
Harry can operate as a straightforward read/write “correctness stress tool” that will check to ensure reads on a cluster are consistent with what it knows it wrote to the cluster. You have a couple options for this.
./harry-stress.sh --help usage: harry-stress.sh [args] -f --flag Flag last run as a failure (dir name + touch file indicating) -t --title Optional title to decorate the results directory with internally in 'title.txt' -d --duration Time in ms to run test (default 60000) -m --minutes Alternate duration in minutes -r --read Read threads. default 2 -w --write Write threads. default 2 -s --seed seed. Defaults to random in 0-1e13 -c --conf .yaml config file. Defaults to conf/external.yaml -v --validate validation type. Defaults to validate-all
An example run: ./harry-stress.sh -s 1234 -r 3 -w 3 -t my_custom_branch_test_1 -m 5
The above will run a test using seed 1234 with 3 read threads, 3 write threads, for 5 minutes, and record the output ( seed, command, and stress output) in results/my_custom_branch_test_1, validating that everything it wrote it finds in the database upon read. If there's a failure, you can rapidly flag the last test run as a failure with ./harry-stress.sh -f
Further config params can be found in conf/external.yaml or whatever custom .yaml file you've pointed to via the -c | --conf flag including things like schema, partition sizes, timestamp generation rules, authentication params, ratios for different mutation query types, and more.
The make file has a stress target where you can more directly access all available ARGS rather than restricting yourself to the convenience script above. If you're using an external cluster (i.e. ./bin/cassandra -f, CCM, docker, kubernetes, or just a deployed cluster), the mini stress tool can be used directly as follows:
# In one terminal; this is needed for the local cassandra dependencies $ make run-cassandra # In another terminal $ make stress ARGS="conf/external.yaml --read=2 --write=2 --duration=60000 --validate-all-local"
This command will start a client that performs a concurrent read/write workload, 2 read and 2 write threads for 60 seconds. Much like the hary-stress.sh script, if the runner sees any inconsistencies it will inform you accordingly.
An equivalent for an in-jvm cluster is:
try (Cluster cluster = builder().withNodes(3)
.start())
{
SchemaSpec schema = new SchemaSpec("harry", "test_table",
asList(pk("pk1", asciiType), pk("pk1", int64Type)),
asList(ck("ck1", asciiType), ck("ck1", int64Type)),
asList(regularColumn("regular1", asciiType), regularColumn("regular1", int64Type)),
asList(staticColumn("static1", asciiType), staticColumn("static1", int64Type)));
Configuration config = Configuration.fromFile("conf/example.yaml")
.unbuild()
.setKeyspaceDdl(String.format("CREATE KEYSPACE IF NOT EXISTS %s WITH replication = {'class': 'SimpleStrategy', 'replication_factor': %d};", schema.keyspace, 3))
.setSUT(() -> new InJvmSut(cluster))
.build();
Run run = config.createRun();
concurrent(run, config,
asList(pool("Writer", 2, MutatingVisitor::new),
pool("Reader", 2, RandomPartitionValidator::new)),
2, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.run();
}
Running sequential read/write workload (i.e. reads strictly following writes, without overlaps), for more determinism is possible with:
$ make stress ARGS="conf/external.yaml --write-before-read --duration=60000 --validate-all"
There is no one-size-fits-all solution for debugging a falsification. We did try to create a shrinker, but unfortunately without Simulator, shrinker only works for issues that are non-concurrent in nature, since there's no way to create a stable repro otherwise. That said, there are several things that might get you started and inspire further ideas about how to debug the issue.
First of all, understand whether or not the issue is likely to be concurrent in nature. If you re-run your test with the same seed, but see no falsification, and it fails only sporadically, and often on different logical timestamp, it is likely that the issue is, in fact concurrent. Here, it is important to note that when you are running concurrent read/write workload, you will get different interleaving of reads and writes every time you do this. If you have reasons to think that you're seeing the falsification because a read has queried a specific partition state, try re-running your test with sequential runner (--write-before-read) if you are using ministress.
If you can get a stable repro with a sequential runner, you're in luck. Now all you need to do is to add logs everywhere and understand what might be causing it. But even if you do not have a stable repro, you are still likely to follow the same steps:
Next, you might want to try to narrow down the scope of the problem. Depending on what the falsification looks like, use your Cassandra knowledge to see what might apply in your situation:
To avoid listing every feature in Harry, it suffices to say you should try to enable/disable features that make sense in the given context, and try to find the combination that avoids the failure, or a minimal combination that still reproduces the issue. Your first goal should be to find a stable repro, even if it involves modifying Cassandra or Harry, or taking the operations, and composing the repro manually. Having a stable repro will make finding a cause much simpler. Sometimes you will find the cause before you have a stable repro, in which case, you still have to produce a stable repro to make things simpler for the reviewer, and to include it into the test suite of your patch.
Lastly, be patient. Debugging falsifications is often a multi-hour endeavour, and things do not always jump out at you, so you might have to spend a significant amount of time tracking the problem down. Once you have found it, it is very rewarding.
in_jvm/InJvmSut - simple in-JVM-dtest system under test.println/PrintlnSut - system under test that prints to sdtout instead of executing queries on the cluster; useful for debugging.mixed_in_jvm/MixedVersionInJvmSut - in-JVM-dtest system under test that works with mixed version clusters.external/ExternalClusterSut - system under test that works with CCM, Docker, Kubernetes, or cluster you may. have deployed elsewhereBoth in-JVM SUTs have fault-injecting functionality available.
single/SingleValidator - visitor that runs several different read queries against a single partition that is associated with current logical timestamp, and validates their results using given model.all_partitions/AllPartitionsValidator - concurrently validates all partitions that were visited during this run.repair_and_validate_local_states/RepairingLocalStateValidator - similar to AllPartitionsValidator, but performs repair before checking node states.mutating/MutatingVisitor - visitor that performs all sorts of mutations.logging/LoggingVisitor - similar to MutatingVisitor, but also logs all operations to a file; useful for debug purposes.corrupting/CorruptingVisitor - visitor that will deliberately change data in the partition it visits. Useful for negative tests (i.e. to ensure that your model actually detects data inconsistencies).And more.
querying_no_op/QueryingNoOpValidator - a model that can be used to “simply” run random queries.quiescent_checker/QuiescentChecker - a model that can be used to verify results of any read that has no writes to the same partition_ concurrent to it. Should be used in conjunction with locking data tracker.quiescent_local_state_checker/QuiescentLocalStateChecker - a model that can check local states of each replica that has to ownsequential/SequentialRunner - runs all visitors sequentially, in the loop, for a specified amount of time; useful for simple tests that do not have to exercise concurrent read/write path.concurrent/ConcurrentRunner - runs all visitors concurrently, each visitor in its own thread, looped, for a specified amount of time; useful for things like concurrent read/write workloads.chain/ChainRunner - receives other runners as input, and runs them one after another once. Useful for both simple and complex scenarios that involve both read/write workloads, validating all partitions, exercising other node-local or cluster-wide operations.staged/StagedRunner - receives other runners (stages) as input, and runs them one after another in a loop; useful for implementing complex scenarios, such as read/write workloads followed by some cluster changing operations.approximate_monotonic/ApproximateMonotonicClock - a timestamp supplier implementation that tries to keep as close to real time as possible, while preserving mapping from real-time to logical timestamps.offset/OffsetClock - a (monotonic) clock that supplies timestamps that do not have any relation to real time.Harry has two primary modes of functionality:
Usually, in unit-test mode, we’re applying several write operations to the cluster state and then run different read queries and validate their results. To learn more about writing unit tests, refer to the “Writing Unit Tests” section.
In exploratory mode, we continuously apply write operations to the cluster and validate their state, allowing data size to grow and simulating real-life behaviour. To learn more about implementing test cases using fuzz mode, refer to the " Implementing Tests" section of this guide, but it‘s likely you’ll have to read the rest of this document to implement more complex scenarios.
To write unit tests with Harry, there's no special knowledge required. Usually, unit tests are written by simply hardcoding the schema and then writing several modification statements one after the other, and then manually validating results of a SELECT query. This might work for simple scenarios, but there’s still a chance that for some other schema or some combination of values the tested feature may not work.
To improve the situation, we can express the test in more abstract terms and, instead of writing it using specific statements, we can describe which statement types are to be used:
test(new SchemaGenerators.Builder("harry")
.partitionKeySpec(1, 5)
.clusteringKeySpec(1, 5)
.regularColumnSpec(1, 10)
.generator(),
historyBuilder -> {
historyBuilder.nextPartition()
.simultaneously()
.randomOrder()
.partitionDeletion()
.rangeDeletion()
.finish();
});
This spec can be used to generate clusters of different sizes, configured with different schemas, executing the given a sequence of actions both in isolation, and combined with other randomly generated ones, with failure-injection.
Best of all is that this test will not only ensure that such a sequence of actions does not produce an exception, but also would ensure that cluster will respond with correct results to any allowed read query.
HistoryBuilder is using the configuration provided by Harry Run, which can be written either using Configuration#ConfigurationBuilder like we did here, or provided in a yaml file.
To begin specifying operations for a new partition, HistoryBuilder#nextPartition has to be called, which returns a PartitionBuilder. For the commands within this partition, you have a choice between:
PartitionBuilder#simultaneously, which will execute listed operations with the same timestampPartitionBuilder#sequentially, which will execute listed operations with monotonically increasing timestamps, giving each operation its own timestampSimilarly, you can choose between:
PartitionBuilder#randomOrder, which will execute listed operations in random orderPartitionBuilder#strictOrder, which will execute listed operations in the order specified by the userThe rest of operations are self-explanatory: #insert, #update, #delete, #columnDelete, #rangeDelete, #sliceDelete, #partitionDelete, and their plural counterparts.
After history generated by HistoryBuilder is replayed using ReplayingVisitor, you can use any model (QuiescentChecker by default) to validate queries. Queries can be provided manually or generated using QueryGenerator or TypedQueryGenerator.
long descriptor that uniquely identifies the value. See data generation section of this guide for more details.For definitions of logical timestamp, descriptor, and other entities used during inflation and deflation, refer to formal relationships section.
Currently, Harry can exercise the following Cassandra functionality:
int8, int16, int32, int64, boolean, float, double, ascii, uuid, timestamp. Collections are only inflatable.CLUSTERING ORDER BYINSERT and UPDATE queries with all columns or arbitrary column subsetDELETE queries: for a single column, single row, or a range of rowsSELECT queries: single row, slices (with single open end), and ranges (with both ends of clusterings specified)Inflating partitions is done using Reconciler. Validating partitions and random queries can be done using Quiescent Checker and Exhaustive Checker.
LIMIT, IN, GROUP BY, token range queriesWhile this list of improvements is incomplete, t should give the reader a rough idea about the state of the project. The original goal of the project was to drive to stability after the significant storage engine rewrite in CASSANDRA-8099 and help remove data loss bugs from the codebase before they got out into the wild. Next steps are to integrate it into both CI and into regular daily dev workflows.
Reproducibility is achieved by using the PCG family of random number generators and generating schema, configuration, and every step of the workload from the repeatable sequence of random numbers. Schema and configuration are generated from the seed. Each operation is assigned its own monotonically increasing logical timestamp, which preserves logical operation order between different runs.
Efficiency is achieved by employing the features of the PCG random number generator (walking the sequence of random numbers back and forth), and writing value generators in a way that preserves properties of the descriptor it was generated from.
Given a long descriptor can be inflated into some value:
These properties are also preserved for the composite values, such as clustering and partition keys.
Every Harry run starts from Configuration. You can find an example configuration under conf/example.yml.
Clock is a component responsible for mapping logical timestamps to real-time ones. When reproducing test failures, and for validation purposes, a snapshot of such be taken to map a real-time timestamp from the value retrieved from the database to map it back to the logical timestamp of the operation that wrote this value. Given a real-time timestamp, the clock can return a logical timestamp, and vice versa.
Runner is a component that schedules operations that change the cluster (system under test) and model state.
System under test: a Cassandra node or cluster. Default implementation is in_jvm (in-JVM DTest cluster). Harry also supports external clusters.
Model is responsible for tracking logical timestamps that system under test was notified about.
Partition descriptor selector controls how partitions are selected based on the current logical timestamp. The default implementation is a sliding window of partition descriptors that will visit one partition after the other in the window slide_after_repeats times. After that, it will retire one partition descriptor, and pick a new one.
Clustering descriptor selector controls how clustering keys are picked within the partition: how many rows there can be in a partition, how many rows are visited for a logical timestamp, how many operations there will be in batch, what kind of operations there will and how often each kind of operation is going to occur.
All Harry components are pluggable and can be redefined. However, many of the default implementations will cover most of the use-cases, so in this guide we’ll focus on ones that are most often used to implement different use cases:
System under test is the simplest one to implement: you only need a way to execute Cassandra queries. At the moment of writing, all custom things, such as nodetool commands, failure injection, etc, are implemented using a SUT / visitor combo: visitor knows about internals of the cluster it is dealing with.
Generally, visitor has to follow the rules specified by DescriptorSelector and PdSelector: (it can only visit issue mutations against the partition that PdSelector has picked for this LTS), and DescriptorSelector (it can visit exactly DescriptorSelector#operationsPerLts rows within this partition, operations have to have a type specified by #operationKind, clustering and value descriptors have to be in accordance with DescriptorSelector#cd and DescriptorSelector#vds). The reason for these limitations is because model has to be able to reproduce the exact sequence of events that was applied to system under test.
Default implementations of partition and clustering descriptors, used in fuzz mode allow to optimise verification. For example, it is possible to go find logical timestamps that are visiting the same partition as any given logical timestamp. When running Harry in unit-test mode, we use a special generating visitor that keeps an entire given sequence of events in memory rather than producing it on the fly. For reasons of efficiency, we do not use generating visitors for generating and verifying large datasets.
To be able to implement efficient models, we had to reduce the amount of state required for validation to a minimum and try to operate on primitive data values most of the time. Any Harry run starts with a seed. Given the same configuration, and the same seed, we're able to make runs deterministic (in other words, records in two clusters created from the same seed are going to have different real-time timestamps, but will be otherwise identical; logical time stamps will also be identical).
Since it‘s clear how to generate things like random schemas, cluster configurations, etc., let’s discuss how we're generating data, and why this type of generation makes validation efficient.
First, we're using PCG family of random number generators, which, besides having nice characteristics that any RNG should have, have two important features:
Out of these operations, determining the next random number in the sequence can be done in constant time, O(1). Advancing generator by n steps can be done in O(log(n)) steps. Since generation is cyclical, advancing the iterator backward is equivalent to advancing it by cardinality - 1 steps. If we're generating 64 bits of entropy, advancing by -1 can be done in 64 steps.
Let's introduce some definitions:
lts is a logical timestamp, an entity (number in our case), given by the clock, on which some action occursrts is an approximate real-time as of clock for this runpid is a partition position, a number between 0 and N, for N unique generated partitionspd is a partition descriptor, a unique descriptor identifying the partitioncd is a clustering descriptor, a unique descriptor identifying row within some partitionA small introduction that can help to understand the relation between these entities. Hierarchically, the generation process looks as follows:
lts is an entry point, from which the decision process startspd is picked from lts, and determines which partition is going to be visited(pd, lts) combination, #rows (the number of rows per modification batch) is determined. There can be at most one modification batch per LTS.cd is picked based on (pd, lts), and n, a sequential number of the operation in the batchpd, lts, and iMost of this formalization is implemented in OpSelectors, and is relied upon inPartitionVisitor and any implementation of a Model.
Random number generation (see OpSelectors#Rng):
rng(i, stream[, e]): returns i'th number drawn from random sequence stream producing values with e bits of entropy (64 bits for now).rng'(s, stream[, e]): returns i of the random number s drawn from the random sequence stream. This function is an inverse of rng.next(rnd, stream[, e]) and prev(rnd, stream[, e]): the next/previous number relative to rnd drawn from random sequence stream.A simple example of a partition descriptor selector is one that is based on a sliding window of a size s, that slides every n iterations. First, we determine where the window should start for a given lts (in other words, how many times it has already slid). After that, we determine which pd we pick out of s available ones. After picking each one of the s descriptors n times, we retire the oldest descriptor and pick a new one to the window. Window start and offset are then used as input for the rng(start + offset, stream) to make sure descriptors are uniformly distributed.
We can build a clustering descriptor selector in a similar manner. Each partition will use its pd as a stream id, and pick cd from a universe of possible cds of size #cds. On each lts, we pick a random offset, and start picking #ops clusterings from this offset < #cds, and wrap around to index 0 after that. This way, each operation maps to a unique cd, and #op can be determined from cd deterministically.
So far, we have established how to generate partition, clustering, and value descriptors. Now, we need to understand how we can generate data modification statements out of these descriptors in a way that helps us to validate data later.
Since every run has a predefined schema, and by the time we visit a partition we have a logical timestamp, we can make the rest of the decisions: pick a number of batches we‘re about to perform, determine what kind of operations each one of the batches is going to contain, which rows we’re going to visit (clustering for each modification operation).
To generate a write, we need to know which partition we‘re going to visit (in other words, partition descriptor), which row we’d like to modify (in other words, clustering descriptor), which columns we‘re modifying (in other words, a column mask), and, for each modified column - its value. By the time we’re ready to make an actual query to the database, we already know pd, cd, rts, and vds[], which is all we need to “inflate” a write.
To inflate each value descriptor, we take a generator for its datatype, and turn its descriptor into the object. This generation process has the following important properties:
inflate(vd) -> value, there's deflate(value) -> vdcompare(vd1, vd2) == compare(inflate(vd1), inflate(vd2))Inflating pd and cd is slightly more involved than inflating vds, since partition and clustering keys are often composite. This means that inflate(pd) returns an array of objects, rather just a single object: inflate(pd) -> value[], and deflate(value[]) -> pd. Just like inflating value descriptors, inflating keys preserves order.
It is easy to see that, given two modifications: Update(pd1, cd1, [vd1_1, vd2_1, vd3_1], lts1) and Update(pd1, cd1, [vd1_2, vd3_2], lts2), we will end up with a resultset that contains effects of both operations: ResultSetRow(pd1, cd1, [vd1_2@rts2, vd2_1@rts1, vd3_2@rts2]).
Model in Harry ties the rest of the components together and allows us to check whether or not data returned by the cluster actually makes sense. The model relies on the clock, since we have to convert real-time timestamps of the returned values back to logical timestamps, and on descriptor selectors to pick the right partition and rows.
Let‘s try to put it all together and build a simple model. The simplest one is a visible row checker. It can check if any row in the response returned from the database could have been produced by one of the operations. However, it won’t be able to find errors related to missing rows, and will only notice some cases of erroneously overwritten rows.
In the model, we can see a response from the database in its deflated state. In other words, instead of the actual values returned, we see their descriptors. Every resultset row consists of pd, cd, vds[] (value descriptors), and lts[] (logical timestamps at which these values were written).
To validate, we need to iterate through all operations for this partition, starting with the latest one the model is aware of. This model has no internal state, and validates entire partitions:
void validatePartitionState(long validationLts, List<ResultSetRow> rows) {
long pd = pdSelector.pd(validationLts, schema);
for (ResultSetRow row : rows) {
// iterator that gives us unique lts from the row in descending order
LongIterator rowLtsIter = descendingIterator(row.lts);
// iterator that gives us unique lts from the model in descending order
LongIterator modelLtsIter = descendingIterator(pdSelector, validationLts);
outer:
while (rowLtsIter.hasNext()) {
long rowLts = rowLtsIter.nextLong();
// this model can not check columns whose values were never written or were deleted
if (rowLts == NO_TIMESTAMP)
continue outer;
if (!modelLtsIter.hasNext())
throw new ValidationException(String.format("Model iterator is exhausted, could not verify %d lts for the row: \n%s %s",
rowLts, row));
while (modelLtsIter.hasNext()) {
long modelLts = modelLtsIter.nextLong();
// column was written by the operation that has a lower lts than the current one from the model
if (modelLts > rowLts)
continue;
// column was written by the operation that has a higher lts, which contradicts to the model, since otherwise we'd validate it by now
if (modelLts < rowLts)
throw new RuntimeException("Can't find a corresponding event id in the model for: " + rowLts + " " + modelLts);
// Compare values for columns that were supposed to be written with this lts
for (int col = 0; col < row.lts.length; col++) {
if (row.lts[col] != rowLts)
continue;
long rid = descriptorSelector.rowId(pd, row.cd, rowLts, row.vds[col], col);
long vd = descriptorSelector.vd(pd, row.cd, rowLts, rid, col);
// If the value model predicts doesn't match the one received from the database, throw an exception
if (vd != row.vds[col])
throw new RuntimeException("Returned value doesn't match the model");
}
continue outer;
}
}
}
}
As you can see, all validation is done using deflated ResultSetRows, which contain enough data to say which logical timestamp each value was written with, and which value descriptor each value has. This model can also validate data concurrently to the ongoing data modification operations.
Let‘s consider one more checker. It’ll be more powerful than the visible rows checker in one way since it can find any inconsistency in data (incorrect timestamp, missing or additional row, rows coming in the wrong order, etc), but it‘ll also have one limitation: it won’t be able to run concurrently with data modification statements. This means that for this model to be used, we should have no in-flight queries, and all queries have to be in a deterministic state by the time we're validating their results.
For this checker, we assume that we have a component that is called Reconciler, which can inflate partition state up to some lts. Reconciler works by simply applying each modification in the same order they were applied to the cluster, and using standard Cassandra data reconciliation rules (last write wins / DELETE wins over INSERT in case of a timestamp collision).
With this component, and knowing that there can be no in-fight queries, we can validate data in the following way:
public void validatePartitionState(Iterator<ResultSetRow> actual, Query query) {
// find out up the highest completed logical timestamp
long maxCompleteLts = tracker.maxComplete();
// get the expected state from reconciler
Iterator<Reconciler.RowState> expected = reconciler.inflatePartitionState(query.pd, maxCompleteLts, query).iterator(query.reverse);
// compare actual and expected rows one-by-one in-order
while (actual.hasNext() && expected.hasNext()) {
ResultSetRow actualRowState = actual.next();
Reconciler.RowState expectedRowState = expected.next();
if (actualRowState.cd != expectedRowState.cd)
throw new ValidationException("Found a row in the model that is not present in the resultset:\nExpected: %s\nActual: %s",
expectedRowState, actualRowState);
if (!Arrays.equals(actualRowState.vds, expectedRowState.vds))
throw new ValidationException("Returned row state doesn't match the one predicted by the model:\nExpected: %s (%s)\nActual: %s (%s).",
Arrays.toString(expectedRowState.vds), expectedRowState,
Arrays.toString(actualRowState.vds), actualRowState);
if (!Arrays.equals(actualRowState.lts, expectedRowState.lts))
throw new ValidationException("Timestamps in the row state don't match ones predicted by the model:\nExpected: %s (%s)\nActual: %s (%s).",
Arrays.toString(expectedRowState.lts), expectedRowState,
Arrays.toString(actualRowState.lts), actualRowState);
}
if (actual.hasNext() || expected.hasNext()) {
throw new ValidationException("Expected results to have the same number of results, but %s result iterator has more results",
actual.hasNext() ? "actual" : "expected");
}
}
If there‘s any mismatch, it’ll be caught right away: if there's an extra row (for example, there were issues in Cassandra that caused it to have duplicate rows), or if some row or even value in the row is missing.
To be able to both run validation concurrently to modifications and be able to catch all kinds of inconsistencies, we need a more involved checker.
In this checker, we rely on inflating partition state. However, we're most interested in lts, opId, and visibility (whether or not it is still in-flight) of each modification operation. To be able to give a reliable result, we need to make sure we follow these rules:
A naive way to do this would be to inflate every possible partition state, where every in-flight operation would be either visible or invisible, but this gets costly very quickly since the number of possible combinations grows exponentially. A better (and simpler) way to do this is to iterate all operations and keep the state of “explained” operations:
public class RowValidationState {
// every column starts in UNOBSERVED, and has to move to either REMOVED, or OBSERVED state
private final ColumnState[] columnStates;
// keep track of operations related to each column state
private final Operation[] causingOperations;
}
Now, we move through all operations for a given row, starting from the newest ones, towards the oldest ones:
public void validatePartitionState(long verificationLts, PeekingIterator<ResultSetRow> actual_, Query query) {
// get a list of operations for each cd
NavigableMap<Long, List<Operation>> operations = inflatePartitionState(query);
for (Map.Entry<Long, List<Operation>> entry : operations.entrySet()) {
long cd = entry.getKey();
List<Operation> ops = entry.getValue();
// Found a row that is present both in the model and in the resultset
if (actual.hasNext() && actual.peek().cd == cd) {
validateRow(new RowValidationState(actual.next), operations);
} else {
validateNoRow(cd, operations);
// Row is not present in the resultset, and we currently look at modifications with a clustering past it
if (actual.hasNext() && cmp.compare(actual.peek().cd, cd) < 0)
throw new ValidationException("Couldn't find a corresponding explanation for the row in the model");
}
}
// if there are more rows in the resultset, and we don't have model explanation for them, we've found an issue
if (actual.hasNext())
throw new ValidationException("Observed unvalidated rows");
}
Now, we have to implement validateRow and validateNoRow. validateNoRow is easy: we only need to make sure that a set of operations results in an invisible row. Since we‘re iterating operations in reverse order, if we encounter a delete not followed by any writes, we can conclude that the row is invisible and exit early. If there’s a write that is not followed by a delete, and the row isn‘t covered by a range tombstone, we know it’s an error.
validateRow only has to iterate operations in reverse order until it can explain the value in every column. For example, if a value is UNOBSERVED, and the first thing we encounter is a DELETE that removes this column, we only need to make sure that the value is actually null, in which case we can conclude that the value can be explained as REMOVED.
Similarly, if we encounter an operation that has written the expected value, we conclude that the value is OBSERVED. If there are any seeming inconsistencies between the model and resultset, we have to check whether or not the operation in question is still in flight. If it is, its results may still not be visible, so we can‘t reliably say it’s an error.
To summarize, in order for us to implement an exhaustive checker, we have to iterate operations for each of the rows present in the model in reverse order until we either detect inconsistency that can't be explained by an in-flight operation or until we explain every value in the row.
As you can see, all checkers up till now are almost entirely stateless. Exhaustive and quiescent models rely on DataTracker component that is aware of the in-flight and completed lts, but don't need any other state apart from that, since we can always inflate a complete partition from scratch every time we validate.
While not relying on the state is a useful feature, at least some state is useful to have. For example, if we're validating just a few rows in the partition, right now we have to iterate through each and every lts that has visited this partition and filter out only modifications that have visited it. However, since the model is notified of each started, and, later, finished modification via recordEvent, we can keep track of pd -> (cd -> lts) map. You can check out VisibleRowsChecker as an example of that.
To use Harry, you first need to build a Cassandra in-JVM dtest jar. At the moment of writing, there‘s no official repository where these jars are released, so you’ll have to build it manually (TODO: Make this simpler!):
make package mvn dependency:copy-dependencies java -cp harry-core/target/harry-core-0.0.2-SNAPSHOT.jar:$(find harrry-core/target/dependency/*.jar | tr -s '\n' ':'). harry.runner.HarryRunner
4.2 is a version of Cassandra which you can find in build.xml, and 4.2-SNAPSHOT is a version of dtest jar that'll be installed under org.apache.cassandra:cassandra-dtest-local in your ~/.m2/repository.
Alternatively, you can use a Docker container. For that just run:
git clone git@github.com:apache/cassandra.git cd cassandra ./build-shaded-dtest-jar.sh 4.2 4.2-SNAPSHOT cd ~/../harry/ make run
To see how Harry detects corruption, uncomment scheduleCorruption(run, executor); in HarryRunner, which will corrupt data in some way.
Each Harry failure contains a complete cluster state, operation log, failure description, and a run configuration. Most of the time, you‘ll be able to just load up the existing cluster state with harry.runner.Reproduce class, which pick up a run configuration from shared/run.yml, and see the same error you’ve seen in your failure log.
When reproducing, make sure to point system_under_test/root in the yaml file to the dump, which is something like ~/harry/shared/cluster-state/1599155256261, and make sure to point validation to the same LTS as the failed one with run.validator.validatePartition(...L).
Because of how our corruptor works, some errors are only reproducible on a specific lts, since they're kind of writing the data “from the future”, so you should also make sure you set the following values from the corresponding values in failure.dump.
model:
exhaustive_checker:
max_seen_lts: your_value
max_complete_lts: your_value
Make sure ~/.m2/settings.xml contains records for the following:
<server>
<id>apache.snapshots.https</id>
<username>username</username>
<password>password</password>
</server>
<server>
<id>apache.releases.https</id>
<username>username</username>
<password>password</password>
</server>
mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.0.2-`git rev-parse --short HEAD`-SNAPSHOT mvn deploy
mvn release:clean CURRENT=0.0.CURRENT NEXT_DEV=0.0.NEXT mvn -DreleaseVersion=$CURRENT -Dtag=$CURRENT -DdevelopmentVersion=$NEXT_DEV-SNAPSHOT release:prepare mvn release:perform
Special thanks to Aleksey Yeschenko, Sam Tunnicliffe, Marcus Eriksson, and Scott Andreas.
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the “License”); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an " AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.