[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-2500?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ivan Andika updated RATIS-2500:
-------------------------------
Summary: Infinite loop notify InstallsSnapshot (was: Infinite notify
InstallsSnapshot)
> Infinite loop notify InstallsSnapshot
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: RATIS-2500
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-2500
> Project: Ratis
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ivan Andika
> Priority: Major
>
> Found in a test where cluster is stuck in infinite snapshot loop where the
> leader keeps sending install snapshot notifications, and the follower keeps
> replying ALREADY_INSTALLED
> Problematic code in
> SnapshotInstallationHandler#notifyStateMachineToInstallSnapshot
>
> {code:java}
> if (snapshotIndex != INVALID_LOG_INDEX && snapshotIndex + 1 >=
> firstAvailableLogIndex &&
> firstAvailableLogIndex > INVALID_LOG_INDEX) {
> // State Machine has already installed the snapshot. Return the
> // latest snapshot index to the Leader.
> inProgressInstallSnapshotIndex.compareAndSet(firstAvailableLogIndex,
> INVALID_LOG_INDEX);
> LOG.info("{}: InstallSnapshot notification result: {}, current snapshot
> index: {}", getMemberId(),
> InstallSnapshotResult.ALREADY_INSTALLED, snapshotIndex);
> final InstallSnapshotReplyProto reply =
> toInstallSnapshotReplyProto(leaderId, getMemberId(), currentTerm,
> InstallSnapshotResult.ALREADY_INSTALLED, snapshotIndex);
> return future.thenApply(dummy -> reply);
> } {code}
> The flow
>
> # Initial state: omNode-1 is leader, processing transactions.
> SNAPSHOT_THRESHOLD = 50 and LOG_PURGE_GAP = 50.
> # `omNode-1` shuts down: Before shutdown, takeSnapshot() is called. The
> snapshotInfo is updated with the current lastAppliedTermIndex. The
> TransactionInfo is written to RocksDB.
> # `omNode-3` becomes leader: The cluster continues processing transactions.
> After 50 more transactions, omNode-3 takes a snapshot and purges old log
> entries. The leader's firstAvailableLogIndex advances.
> # omNode-1` restarts: During initialization:
> • loadSnapshotInfoFromDB() reads TransactionInfo from RocksDB and sets
> snapshotInfo to the last applied index before shutdown (e.g., index 0 or some
> small value from term 1).
> • getLatestSnapshot() returns this snapshotInfo.
> • The RaftLogBase constructor calls getSnapshotIndexFromStateMachine
> which returns snapshotInfo.getIndex() (e.g., 0).
> • Both commitIndex and snapshotIndex in the Raft log are initialized to
> this value (0).
> # Leader sends install snapshot notification: omNode-3 detects omNode-1 is
> behind and sends installSnapshot with firstAvailableLogIndex = 1 (the first
> available log entry in the leader's log after purging).
> # In notifyStateMachineToInstallSnapshot if condition returns true
> (snapshotIndex (0) != INVALID_LOG_INDEX (-1) → true, snapshotIndex + 1 (1)
> >= firstAvailableLogIndex (1) → true, firstAvailableLogIndex (1) >
> INVALID_LOG_INDEX (-1) → true
> # Follower returns already ALREADY_INSTALLED with snapshotIndex = 0. This is
> incorrect because omNode-1's snapshot at index 0 is from term 1, while the
> leader is in term 2 with entries starting at index 1. The follower has NOT
> actually applied the entries that the leader has, it just happens that its
> local snapshot index (0) satisfies the arithmetic condition 0 + 1 >= 1
> The Core Problem
> The ALREADY_INSTALLED check only compares indices without considering
> terms. The follower's snapshotIndex of 0 (from term 1) is treated as
> equivalent to the leader's firstAvailableLogIndex of 1 (from term 2), even
> though they
> represent completely different states. The condition snapshotIndex + 1 >=
> firstAvailableLogIndex is a heuristic that assumes if the follower's snapshot
> is at or past the leader's first available log entry, the follower doesn't
> need
> the snapshot. But this breaks when:
> * The follower's snapshot is from a previous term
> * The leader's log has been purged to a very low index (like 1) in a new term
> * The follower missed all entries in the new term
> The fix should be to also take into account the snapshot term when comparing
> snapshot, instead of only snapshot index.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
