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

Add rack-aware load balancing policy #73

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 18, 2023

Conversation

martin-sucha
Copy link

We need to prefer local rack as there are higher network costs
when communicating with nodes in remote rack.

This policy prefers nodes from the local rack, then local datacenter
and then other nodes.

The new RackAwarePolicy is similar to DCAwarePolicy,
but does not have the deprecated options.
TokenAwarePolicy and other code needed to be modified
so that the local rack is propagated.

The TokenAware policy was changed to prefer replicas in remote
rack / remote DC before trying non-replica nodes.
It does not make much sense to not try the replicas and
trying the replicas simplifies the code as now we have three
levels local/remote/remote2.

This change might not be backwards-compatible,
we don't know what exactly this project guarantees in terms of
backwards compatibility.

Co-Authored-By: Peter Navrátil [email protected]

martin-sucha and others added 5 commits January 2, 2023 14:28
The out was not helpful for understanding the failure of
a test.
Printing the query plans will help.
This argument was not used anywhere, it worked by chance
since it had the same value everywhere.
The Datstax C++ driver has default ONE,
the Scylla fork has LOCAL_ONE.
We need to prefer local rack as there are higher network costs
when communicating with nodes in remote rack.

This policy prefers nodes from the local rack, then local datacenter
and then other nodes.

The new RackAwarePolicy is similar to DCAwarePolicy,
but does not have the deprecated options.
TokenAwarePolicy and other code needed to be modified
so that the local rack is propagated.

The TokenAware policy was changed to prefer replicas in remote
rack / remote DC before trying non-replica nodes.
It does not make much sense to not try the replicas and
trying the replicas simplifies the code as now we have three
levels local/remote/remote2.

This change might not be backwards-compatible,
we don't know what exactly this project guarantees in terms of
backwards compatibility.

Co-Authored-By: Peter Navrátil <[email protected]>
@martin-sucha
Copy link
Author

See also datastax#536

Comment on lines +42 to +62
if (local_dc_.empty()) { // Only override if no local DC was specified.
local_dc_ = local_dc;
}

if (local_dc_.empty() && connected_host && !connected_host->dc().empty()) {
LOG_INFO("Using '%s' for the local data center "
"(if this is incorrect, please provide the correct data center)",
connected_host->dc().c_str());
local_dc_ = connected_host->dc();
}

if (local_rack_.empty()) { // Only override if no local rack was specified.
local_rack_ = local_rack;
}

if (local_rack_.empty() && connected_host && !connected_host->rack().empty()) {
LOG_INFO("Using '%s' for the local rack "
"(if this is incorrect, please provide the correct rack)",
connected_host->rack().c_str());
local_rack_ = connected_host->rack();
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor issue: when only one of local_dc or local_rack is empty, the empty one is populated from connected_host (which corresponds to a control connection) while the non-empty one is populated from a user configuration, which could result in nonsensical DC+rack combination.

Copy link

@avelanarius avelanarius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apart from the one minor problem, the policy looks correct to me.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants