Voluntarism in the capture range of keys in case of a cluster separation can lead to data loss.

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Start scalaris with four nodes. An each node should to own an equal part oh 
the keyspace.
2. Suspend all nodes except the boot-node by pressing Ctrl-C in the erlang 
shell of these nodes.
3. Make the write operation for some key:
ok=cs_api_v2:write("Key", 1).
1=cs_api_v2:read("Key").
4. Resume the suspended nodes (by pressing c + [enter] on each).
5. Try to read the key value:
{fail, not_found}=cs_api_v2:read("Key").

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
So we lost the data after the cluster recombination. You can get another 
effect, in the case when the writing of this key was made for each of the 
breakaway node by different clients. In this case, after recombination, the 
nodes can be stored keys having different values but the same version. And 
therefore in the further reading data from the key, different clients can get 
different values simultaneously.
The proof:
> cs_api_v2:range_read(0,0).
{ok,[{12561922216592930516936087995162401722,2,false,0,0},
     {182703105677062162248623391711046507450,4,false,0,0},
     {267773697407296778114467043568988560314,1,false,0,0},
     {97632513946827546382779739853104454586,3,false,0,0}]}
It is four different values for the "Key" key.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
r978

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by serge.po...@gmail.com on 10 Aug 2010 at 3:31

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi!
I apologize for persistence. Can you to comment this issue (and issue 57)?

Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2010 at 1:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

With your test you violate a precondition of Scalaris: Only a minority of 
replicas is allowed to fail concurrently. Otherwise strong consistency cannot 
be guaranteed.

Original comment by schin...@gmail.com on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

In my test all nodes are ok. The network split is emulated - one node per 
partition. The simplest exapmple from the real file - network switch failute.

Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> The network split is emulated - one node per partition.
By this case I got the result:

> cs_api_v2:range_read(0,0).
{ok,[{12561922216592930516936087995162401722,2,false,0,0},
     {182703105677062162248623391711046507450,4,false,0,0},
     {267773697407296778114467043568988560314,1,false,0,0},
     {97632513946827546382779739853104454586,3,false,0,0}]}

The original problem reproduce steps emulates network splitting case 1+3.

Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com on 26 Aug 2010 at 10:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

s/real file/real life/

Original comment by serge.po...@gmail.com on 26 Aug 2010 at 12:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Scalaris currently cannot correctly handle this situation. When the network 
splits into two partitions, it will successfully repair the ring in both 
partitions. And you will end up with two completely separate rings. In both 
rings you will be able to modify the same item and you will end up with 
inconsistencies when merging again.

We are still considering different approaches to handle such situations.

Original comment by schu...@gmail.com on 26 Aug 2010 at 3:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This issue was closed by revision r1351.

Original comment by schin...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2011 at 6:43

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It is not fixed. Sorry. My commit message for r1351 was wrong.

Original comment by schin...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2011 at 6:54

• Changed state: New

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by nico.kru...@googlemail.com on 12 Jan 2011 at 8:40

• Changed state: Accepted