From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp14.mail.ru (smtp14.mail.ru [94.100.181.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1148C4696C3 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:50:42 +0300 (MSK) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: "sergos@tarantool.org" In-Reply-To: <6105DEEE-7332-4A14-B56E-A89D4B107D56@tarantool.org> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:50:41 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4CD8ED86-38D9-4564-89EF-935AF74F29A6@tarantool.org> References: <20200403210836.GB18283@tarantool.org> <20200414125848.GA1249@pony.bronevichok.ru> <20200414144308.GC1734@tarantool.org> <6105DEEE-7332-4A14-B56E-A89D4B107D56@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC] Quorum-based synchronous replication List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?utf-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JrQsNGA0LvQvtCy?= , =?utf-8?B?0KLQuNC80YPRgCDQodCw0YTQuNC9?= , Mons Anderson , Aleksandr Lyapunov , Sergey Bronnikov Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Sorry for mess introduced by mail client in previous message. Here=E2=80=99s the correct version with 3 more misprints fixed. The version is available here = https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/blob/sergos/quorum-based-synchro/do= c/rfc/quorum-based-synchro.md Please, reply all with your comments/blessings today. Regards, Sergos --- * **Status**: In progress * **Start date**: 31-03-2020 * **Authors**: Sergey Ostanevich @sergos \ * **Issues**: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4842 ## Summary The aim of this RFC is to address the following list of problems formulated at MRG planning meeting: - protocol backward compatibility to enable cluster upgrade w/o downtime - consistency of data on replica and leader - switch from leader to replica without data loss - up to date replicas to run read-only requests - ability to switch async replicas into sync ones and vice versa - guarantee of rollback on leader and sync replicas - simplicity of cluster orchestration What this RFC is not: - high availability (HA) solution with automated failover, roles assignments an so on - master-master configuration support ## Background and motivation There are number of known implementation of consistent data presence in a cluster. They can be commonly named as "wait for LSN" technique. The biggest issue with this technique is the absence of rollback guarantees at replica in case of transaction failure on one master or some of the replicas in the cluster. To provide such capabilities a new functionality should be introduced in Tarantool core, with requirements mentioned before - backward compatibility and ease of cluster orchestration. ## Detailed design ### Quorum commit The main idea behind the proposal is to reuse existent machinery as much as possible. It will ensure the well-tested and proven functionality across many instances in MRG and beyond is used. The transaction = rollback mechanism is in place and works for WAL write failure. If we substitute the WAL success with a new situation which is named 'quorum' later in this document then no changes to the machinery is needed. The same is true for snapshot machinery that allows to create a copy of the database in memory for the whole period of snapshot file write. Adding quorum = here also minimizes changes. Currently replication represented by the following scheme: ``` Customer Leader WAL(L) Replica WAL(R) |------TXN----->| | | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | created] | | | | | | | | | |-----TXN----->| | | | | | | | | |<---WAL Ok----| | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | destroyed] | | | | | | | | |<----TXN Ok----| | | | | |-------Replicate TXN------->| | | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | created] | | | | | | | | | |-----TXN----->| | | | | | | | | |<---WAL Ok----| | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | destroyed] | | | | | | ``` To introduce the 'quorum' we have to receive confirmation from replicas to make a decision on whether the quorum is actually present. Leader collects necessary amount of replicas confirmation plus its own WAL success. This state is named 'quorum' and gives leader the right to complete the customers' request. So the picture will change to: ``` Customer Leader WAL(L) Replica WAL(R) |------TXN----->| | | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | created] | | | | | | | | | |-----TXN----->| | | | | | | | | |-------Replicate TXN------->| | | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | |<---WAL Ok----| created] | | | | | | | [Waiting | |-----TXN----->| | of a quorum] | | | | | | |<---WAL Ok----| | | | | | | |<------Replication Ok-------| | | | | | | | [Quorum | | | | achieved] | | | | | | | | | [TXN Rollback | | | | destroyed] | | | | | | | | | |---Confirm--->| | | | | | | | | |----------Confirm---------->| | | | | | | |<---TXN Ok-----| | [TXN Rollback | | | | destroyed] | | | | | | | | | |---Confirm--->| | | | | | ``` The quorum should be collected as a table for a list of transactions waiting for quorum. The latest transaction that collects the quorum is considered as complete, as well as all transactions prior to it, since all transactions should be applied in order. Leader writes a 'confirm' message to the WAL that refers to the transaction's LSN and it has its own LSN. This confirm message is delivered to all replicas through the existing replication mechanism. Replica should report a positive or a negative result of the TXN to the leader via the IPROTO explicitly to allow leader to collect the quorum or anti-quorum for the TXN. In case a negative result for the TXN is received from minor number of replicas, then leader has to send an error message to the replicas, which in turn have to disconnect from the replication the same way as it is done now in case of conflict. In case leader receives enough error messages to do not achieve the quorum it should write the 'rollback' message in the WAL. After that leader and replicas will perform the rollback for all TXN that didn't receive quorum. ### Recovery and failover. Tarantool instance during reading WAL should postpone the commit until the 'confirm' is read. In case the WAL eof is achieved, the instance should keep rollback for all transactions that are waiting for a confirm entry until the role of the instance is set. In case this instance become a replica there are no additional actions needed, since all info about quorum/rollback will arrive via replication. In case this instance is assigned a leader role, it should write 'rollback' in its WAL and perform rollback for all transactions waiting for a quorum. In case of a leader failure a replica with the biggest LSN with former leader's ID is elected as a new leader. The replica should record 'rollback' in its WAL which effectively means that all transactions without quorum should be rolled back. This rollback will be delivered to all replicas and they will perform rollbacks of all transactions waiting for quorum. An interface to force apply pending transactions by issuing a confirm entry for them have to be introduced for manual recovery. ### Snapshot generation. We also can reuse current machinery of snapshot generation. Upon receiving a request to create a snapshot an instance should request a readview for the current commit operation. Although start of the snapshot generation should be postponed until this commit operation receives its confirmation. In case operation is rolled back, the = snapshot generation should be aborted and restarted using current transaction after rollback is complete. After snapshot is created the WAL should start from the first operation that follows the commit operation snapshot is generated for. That means WAL will contain 'confirm' messages that refer to transactions that are not present in the WAL. Apparently, we have to allow this for the case 'confirm' refers to a transaction with LSN less than the first entry in the WAL. In case master appears unavailable a replica still have to be able to create a snapshot. Replica can perform rollback for all transactions = that are not confirmed and claim its LSN as the latest confirmed txn. Then it can create a snapshot in a regular way and start with blank xlog file. All rolled back transactions will appear through the regular replication in case master reappears later on. ### Asynchronous replication. Along with synchronous replicas the cluster can contain asynchronous replicas. That means async replica doesn't reply to the leader with errors since they're not contributing into quorum. Still, async replicas have to follow the new WAL operation, such as keep rollback info until 'quorum' message is received. This is essential for the case of 'rollback' message appearance in the WAL. This message assumes replica is able to perform all necessary rollback by itself. Cluster information should contain explicit notification of each replica operation mode. ### Synchronous replication enabling. Synchronous operation can be required for a set of spaces in the data scheme. That means only transactions that contain data modification for these spaces should require quorum. Such transactions named synchronous. As soon as last operation of synchronous transaction appeared in = leader's WAL, it will cause all following transactions - matter if they are synchronous or not - wait for the quorum. In case quorum is not achieved the 'rollback' operation will cause rollback of all transactions after the synchronous one. It will ensure the consistent state of the data = both on leader and replicas. In case user doesn't require synchronous = operation for any space then no changes to the WAL generation and replication will appear. Cluster description should contain explicit attribute for each replica to denote it participates in synchronous activities. Also the = description should contain criterion on how many replicas responses are needed to achieve the quorum. ## Rationale and alternatives There is an implementation of synchronous replication as part of gh-980 activities, still it is not in a state to get into the product. More than that it intentionally breaks backward compatibility which is a prerequisite for this proposal.