Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple In-flight Broadcasts and Redundant Paths Break Broadcast Tree #378

Open
jrwest opened this issue Sep 9, 2013 · 4 comments
Open
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@jrwest
Copy link
Contributor

jrwest commented Sep 9, 2013

As found by Quviq in testing, the broadcast tree rooted at a node can be temporarily broken (it is healed by lazy gossip) if multiple writes are in-flight and there are redundant paths in the tree. Since the tree heals this is not so harmful but it does affect how fast updates converge across the cluster.

A few things to investigate here:

  1. are nodes improperly pruning in this case
  2. can we construct the initial tree w/o redundant links to simply avoid this case

2 is a bit of a punt, but sufficient in addition to healing. It would be good to look into 1 a bit before closing this out, however.

Original Message:

We looked into the broken spanning trees, and it happens when there are concurrent broadcasts
from the same node and there are multiple paths to a node. It's shouldn't be a problem in practice
since redundant paths are eventually removed and the broken tree is healed by the gossip protocol.
It might be worth thinking about how to generate the initial tree though.
@ghost ghost assigned jrwest Sep 9, 2013
@jrwest jrwest modified the milestones: 2.0-RC, Next Release Mar 24, 2014
@jrwest
Copy link
Contributor Author

jrwest commented Mar 24, 2014

This needs to be re-investigated during the testing cycle. marked for 2.0-RC.

@reiddraper
Copy link
Contributor

This got moved to 2.0. But it does not seem like a test or doc task. Should it get moved back to 2.0-RC?

@jrwest
Copy link
Contributor Author

jrwest commented Jun 5, 2014

no it was purposefully moved to 2.0.1 yesterday. not sure when that became 2.0.

@reiddraper
Copy link
Contributor

@jrwest ok, probably just a misunderstanding with the milestone mixup. Moving back to 2.0.1.

@reiddraper reiddraper modified the milestones: 2.0.1, 2.0 Jun 5, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants