[Tarantool-patches] [RFC] Raft over qsync
kostja.osipov at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 23:56:28 MSK 2020
* sergos at tarantool.org <sergos at tarantool.org> [20/08/03 23:54]:
willem is a very naive implementation, I'd recommend looking at
> * **Status**: In progress
> * **Start date**: 27-07-2020
> * **Authors**: Sergey Ostanevich @sergos \<sergos at tarantool.org\>, Vladislav Shpilevoy @Gerold103 \<v.shpilevoy at tarantool.org\>, Cyrill Gorcunov @cyrillos \<gorcunov at gmail.com\>
> * **Issues**: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5202
> ## Summary
> The #4842 is introduced a quorum based replication (qsync) in Tarantool
> environment. To augment the synchronous replication with automated leader
> election and failover, we need to make a choice on how to implement one of
> algorithms available. Our preference is Raft since it is has good
> comprehensibility. I would refer to the https://raft.github.io/raft.pdf further
> in the document.
> The biggest problem is to link together the master-master nature of log
> replication in Tarantool with the strong leader concept in Raft.
> ## Background and motivation
> Customers requested synchronous replication with automated failover as part of
> Tarantool development. These features also fits well with Tarantool future we
> envision in MRG.
> ## Detailed design
> Qsync implementation is performed in a way that allows users to run
> Tarantool-based solution without any changes to their code base. Literally if
> you have a database set up, it will continue running after upgrade the same way
> as it was prior to 2.5 version. You can start employing the synchronous
> replication by introduction of specific spaces in your schema and after that
> qsync with come to play. There were no changes to the protocol, so you can mix
> 2.5 instances with previous in both ways - replicate from new to old either
> vice-versa - until you introduce the first synchronous space.
> The machinery under the hood oblige all instances to follow a new process of
> transaction: if transaction touches a synchronous space then it will require a
> special command from the WAL - confirm. Since the obligation is an incremental
> requirement we can keep the backward compatibility and in both ways.
> We expect to elaborate similar approach to the Raft-based failover machinery.
> Which means one can use the qsync replication without the Raft enabled, being
> able to elaborate its own failover mechanism. Although, if Raft is enabled then
> all instances in the cluster are obliged to follow the rules implied by the
> Raft, such as ignore log entries from a leader with stale term number.
> ### Leader Election
> We expect the leader election algorithm can be reused from the Raft
> implementation  with additional mapping to the Tarantool replication
> The replication mechanism of Tarantool with qsync provides the following
> features, that required by Raft algorithm:
> * The new entry is delivered to the majority of the replicas and only after this
> it is committed, the fact of commit is delivered to client
> * The log reflects the fact of an entry is committed by a special entry 'Commit'
> as part of qsync machinery
> * Log consistency comes from the append-only nature of the log and the vclock
> check-up during the log append
> * Log inconsistencies are handled during replication (see log replication below)
> Raft implementation will hold leader's term and it's vote for the current term
> in its local structures, while issuing WAL entries to reflect changes in the
> status will ensure the persistence of the Raft state. After a fail node will
> read the WAL entries and apply them to its runtime state. These entries should
> go into WAL under the ID number 0, so that they will not be propagated.
> To propagate the results of election there should be an entry in WAL with
> dedicated info: raft_term and leader_id. An elected leader should issue such an
> entry upon its election as a first entry.
> ### Log Replication
> The qsync RFC explains how we enforce the log replication in a way it is
> described in clause 5.3 of the : committed entry always has a commit message
> in the xlog. Key difference here is that log entry index comprises of two parts:
> the LSN and the served ID. The follower's log consistency will be achieved
> during a) leader election, when follower will only vote for a candidate who has
> VCLOCK components greater or equal to follower's and b) during the join to a new
> leader, when follower will have an option to drop it's waiting queue (named
> limbo in qsync implementation), either perform a full rejoin.
> The latter is painful, still is the only way to follow the current
> representation of xlog that contains no replay info.
> There is a requirement in 5.1 of :
> > If a server receives a request with a stale term number, it rejects the
> > request.
> that requires to introduce a machinery that will inspect every DML message from
> IPROTO to check if it satisfies the requirement. To introduce this machinery
> there should be an additional info put into the replicated DML map under
> IPROTO_RAFT_TERM: a term of the leader taken from the Raft runtime
> implementation. This info should be added to the DML - and checked - only in
> case the cluster is configured to use the Raft machinery.
> As a result an instance that is joining a cluster with the Raft protocol enabled
> has to enable the protocol either, otherwise it should be disconnected.
> ## Rationale and alternatives
> C implementation of Raft using binary protocol has an alternative of
> implementation using Lua, for example . Although, the performance of the
> latter can have a significant impact in part of log replication enforcement.
> ## References
> *  https://raft.github.io/raft.pdf
> *  https://github.com/willemt/raft
> *  https://github.com/igorcoding/tarantool-raft
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia
More information about the Tarantool-patches