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

Test correctness with WAL disabled in non-txn blackbox crash tests #9338

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ajkr
Copy link
Contributor

@ajkr ajkr commented Dec 27, 2021

Recently we added the ability to verify some prefix of operations are recovered (AKA no "hole" in the recovered data) (#8966). Besides testing unsynced data loss scenarios, it is also useful to test WAL disabled use cases, where unflushed writes are expected to be lost. Note RocksDB only offers the prefix-recovery guarantee to WAL-disabled use cases that use atomic flush, so crash test always enables atomic flush when WAL is disabled.

To verify WAL-disabled crash-recovery correctness globally, i.e., also in whitebox and blackbox transaction tests, it is possible but requires further changes. I added TODOs in db_crashtest.py.

Depends on #9305.

Test Plan: Running all crash tests and many instances of blackbox. Sandcastle links are in Phabricator diff test plan.

@ajkr ajkr requested a review from riversand963 December 29, 2021 00:10
@ajkr ajkr force-pushed the db-crashtest-disable-wal branch from a1ca703 to 807f84b Compare December 29, 2021 01:38
@ajkr ajkr changed the title Test correctness with WAL disabled in all non-transaction crash tests Test correctness with WAL disabled in non-txn blackbox crash tests Dec 29, 2021
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@ajkr has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.

@ajkr ajkr force-pushed the db-crashtest-disable-wal branch from 807f84b to 6c2bd68 Compare January 2, 2022 00:34
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@ajkr has updated the pull request. You must reimport the pull request before landing.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@ajkr has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.

facebook-github-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2022
Summary:
The LastSequence field in the MANIFEST file is the baseline seqno for a recovered DB. Recovering WAL entries might cause the recovered DB's seqno to advance above this baseline, but the recovered DB will never use a smaller seqno.

Before this PR, we were writing the DB's seqno at the time of LogAndApply() as the LastSequence value. This works in the sense that it is a large enough baseline for the recovered DB that it'll never overwrite any records in existing SST files. At the same time, it's arbitrarily larger than what's needed. This behavior comes from LevelDB, where there was no tracking of largest seqno in an SST file.

Now we know the largest seqno of newly written SST files, so we can write an exact value in LastSequence that actually reflects the largest seqno in any file referred to by the MANIFEST. This is primarily useful for correctness testing with unsynced data loss, where the recovered DB's seqno needs to indicate what records were recovered.

Pull Request resolved: #9305

Test Plan:
- #9338 adds crash-recovery correctness testing coverage for WAL disabled use cases
- #9357 will extend that testing to cover file ingestion
- Added assertion at end of LogAndApply() for `VersionSet::descriptor_last_sequence_` consistency with files
- Manually tested upgrade/downgrade compatibility with a custom crash test that randomly picks between a `db_stress` built with and without this PR (for old code it must run with `-disable_wal=0`)

Reviewed By: riversand963

Differential Revision: D33182770

Pulled By: ajkr

fbshipit-source-id: 0bfafaf685f347cc8cb0e1d62e0186340a738f7d
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants