Lihuanghe

cockroachDB design

Lihuanghe · 2017-08-30推荐 · 2851阅读 CET/4 554 CET/6 71 原文链接

About

This document is an updated version of the original design documents by Spencer Kimball from early 2014.

Overview

Cockroach is a distributed key:value datastore (SQL and structured data layers of cockroach have yet to be defined) which supports ACID transactional semantics and versioned values as first-class features. The primary design goal is global consistency and survivability, hence the name. Cockroach aims to tolerate disk, machine, rack, and even datacenter failures with minimal latency disruption and no manual intervention. Cockroach nodes are symmetric; a design goal is homogeneous deployment (one binary) with minimal configuration.

Cockroach implements a single, monolithic sorted map from key to value where both keys and values are byte strings (not unicode). Cockroach scales linearly (theoretically up to 4 exabytes (4E) of logical data). The map is composed of one or more ranges and each range is backed by data stored in RocksDB (a variant of LevelDB), and is replicated to a total of three or more cockroach servers. Ranges are defined by start and end keys. Ranges are merged and split to maintain total byte size within a globally configurable min/max size interval. Range sizes default to target 64M in order to facilitate quick splits and merges and to distribute load at hotspots within a key range. Range replicas are intended to be located in disparate datacenters for survivability (e.g. { US-East, US-West, Japan }, { Ireland, US-East, US-West}, { Ireland, US-East, US-West, Japan, Australia }).

Single mutations to ranges are mediated via an instance of a distributed consensus algorithm to ensure consistency. We’ve chosen to use the Raft consensus algorithm; all consensus state is stored in RocksDB.

A single logical mutation may affect multiple key/value pairs. Logical mutations have ACID transactional semantics. If all keys affected by a logical mutation fall within the same range, atomicity and consistency are guaranteed by Raft; this is the fast commit path. Otherwise, a non-locking distributed commit protocol is employed between affected ranges.

Cockroach provides snapshot isolation (SI) and serializable snapshot isolation (SSI) semantics, allowing externally consistent, lock-free reads and writes--both from a historical snapshot timestamp and from the current wall clock time. SI provides lock-free reads and writes but still allows write skew. SSI eliminates write skew, but introduces a performance hit in the case of a contentious system. SSI is the default isolation; clients must consciously decide to trade correctness for performance. Cockroach implements a limited form of linearizability, providing ordering for any observer or chain of observers.

Similar to Spanner directories, Cockroach allows configuration of arbitrary zones of data. This allows replication factor, storage device type, and/or datacenter location to be chosen to optimize performance and/or availability. Unlike Spanner, zones are monolithic and don’t allow movement of fine grained data on the level of entity groups.

Architecture

Cockroach implements a layered architecture. The highest level of abstraction is the SQL layer (currently unspecified in this document). It depends directly on the structured data API, which provides familiar relational concepts such as schemas, tables, columns, and indexes. The structured data API in turn depends on the distributed key value store, which handles the details of range addressing to provide the abstraction of a single, monolithic key value store. The distributed KV store communicates with any number of physical cockroach nodes. Each node contains one or more stores, one per physical device.

Architecture

Each store contains potentially many ranges, the lowest-level unit of key-value data. Ranges are replicated using the Raft consensus protocol. The diagram below is a blown up version of stores from four of the five nodes in the previous diagram. Each range is replicated three ways using raft. The color coding shows associated range replicas.

Ranges

Each physical node exports a RoachNode service. Each RoachNode exports one or more key ranges. RoachNodes are symmetric. Each has the same binary and assumes identical roles.

Nodes and the ranges they provide access to can be arranged with various physical network topologies to make trade offs between reliability and performance. For example, a triplicated (3-way replica) range could have each replica located on different:

  • disks within a server to tolerate disk failures.
  • servers within a rack to tolerate server failures.
  • servers on different racks within a datacenter to tolerate rack power/network failures.
  • servers in different datacenters to tolerate large scale network or power outages.

Up to F failures can be tolerated, where the total number of replicas N = 2F + 1 (e.g. with 3x replication, one failure can be tolerated; with 5x replication, two failures, and so on).

Cockroach Client

In order to support diverse client usage, Cockroach clients connect to any node via HTTPS using protocol buffers or JSON. The connected node proxies involved client work including key lookups and write buffering.

Keys

Cockroach keys are arbitrary byte arrays. If textual data is used in keys, utf8 encoding is recommended (this helps for cleaner display of values in debugging tools). User-supplied keys are encoded using an ordered code. System keys are either prefixed with null characters (\0 or \0\0) for system tables, or take the form of <user-key><system-suffix> to sort user-key-range specific system keys immediately after the user keys they refer to. Null characters are used in system key prefixes to guarantee that they sort first.

Versioned Values

Cockroach maintains historical versions of values by storing them with associated commit timestamps. Reads and scans can specify a snapshot time to return the most recent writes prior to the snapshot timestamp. Older versions of values are garbage collected by the system during compaction according to a user-specified expiration interval. In order to support long-running scans (e.g. for MapReduce), all versions have a minimum expiration.

Versioned values are supported via modifications to RocksDB to record commit timestamps and GC expirations per key.

Each range maintains a small (i.e. latest 10s of read timestamps), in-memory cache from key to the latest timestamp at which the key was read. This read timestamp cache is updated every time a key is read. The cache’s entries are evicted oldest timestamp first, updating the low water mark of the cache appropriately. If a new range lease holder is elected, it sets the low water mark for the cache to the current wall time + ε (ε = 99th percentile clock skew).

Lock-Free Distributed Transactions

Cockroach provides distributed transactions without locks. Cockroach transactions support two isolation levels:

  • snapshot isolation (SI) and
  • serializable snapshot isolation (SSI).

SI is simple to implement, highly performant, and correct for all but a handful of anomalous conditions (e.g. write skew). SSI requires just a touch more complexity, is still highly performant (less so with contention), and has no anomalous conditions. Cockroach’s SSI implementation is based on ideas from the literature and some possibly novel insights.

SSI is the default level, with SI provided for application developers who are certain enough of their need for performance and the absence of write skew conditions to consciously elect to use it. In a lightly contended system, our implementation of SSI is just as performant as SI, requiring no locking or additional writes. With contention, our implementation of SSI still requires no locking, but will end up aborting more transactions. Cockroach’s SI and SSI implementations prevent starvation scenarios even for arbitrarily long transactions.

See the Cahill paper for one possible implementation of SSI. This is another great paper. For a discussion of SSI implemented by preventing read-write conflicts (in contrast to detecting them, called write-snapshot isolation), see the Yabandeh paper, which is the source of much inspiration for Cockroach’s SSI.

Each Cockroach transaction is assigned a random priority and a "candidate timestamp" at start. The candidate timestamp is the provisional timestamp at which the transaction will commit, and is chosen as the current clock time of the node coordinating the transaction. This means that a transaction without conflicts will usually commit with a timestamp that, in absolute time, precedes the actual work done by that transaction.

In the course of coordinating a transaction between one or more distributed nodes, the candidate timestamp may be increased, but will never be decreased. The core difference between the two isolation levels SI and SSI is that the former allows the transaction's candidate timestamp to increase and the latter does not.

Hybrid Logical Clock

Each cockroach node maintains a hybrid logical clock (HLC) as discussed in the Hybrid Logical Clock paper. HLC time uses timestamps which are composed of a physical component (thought of as and always close to local wall time) and a logical component (used to distinguish between events with the same physical component). It allows us to track causality for related events similar to vector clocks, but with less overhead. In practice, it works much like other logical clocks: When events are received by a node, it informs the local HLC about the timestamp supplied with the event by the sender, and when events are sent a timestamp generated by the local HLC is attached.

For a more in depth description of HLC please read the paper. Our implementation is here.

Cockroach picks a Timestamp for a transaction using HLC time. Throughout this document, timestamp always refers to the HLC time which is a singleton on each node. The HLC is updated by every read/write event on the node, and the HLC time >= wall time. A read/write timestamp received in a cockroach request from another node is not only used to version the operation, but also updates the HLC on the node. This is useful in guaranteeing that all data read/written on a node is at a timestamp < next HLC time.

Transaction execution flow

Transactions are executed in two phases:

1. Start the transaction by writing a new entry to the system transaction table (keys prefixed by \0tx) with state “PENDING”. In parallel write an "intent" value for each datum being written as part of the transaction. These are normal MVCC values, with the addition of a special flag (i.e. “intent”) indicating that the value may be committed after the transaction itself commits. In addition, the transaction id (unique and chosen at tx start time by client) is stored with intent values. The tx id is used to refer to the transaction table when there are conflicts and to make tie-breaking decisions on ordering between identical timestamps. Each node returns the timestamp used for the write (which is the original candidate timestamp in the absence of read/write conflicts); the client selects the maximum from amongst all write timestamps as the final commit timestamp.

2. Commit the transaction by updating its entry in the system transaction table (keys prefixed by \0tx). The value of the commit entry contains the candidate timestamp (increased as necessary to accommodate any latest read timestamps). Note that the transaction is considered fully committed at this point and control may be returned to the client.

In the case of an SI transaction, a commit timestamp which was increased to accommodate concurrent readers is perfectly acceptable and the commit may continue. For SSI transactions, however, a gap between candidate and commit timestamps necessitates transaction restart (note: restart is different than abort--see below).

After the transaction is committed, all written intents are upgraded in parallel by removing the “intent” flag. The transaction is considered fully committed before this step and does not wait for it to return control to the transaction coordinator.

In the absence of conflicts, this is the end. Nothing else is necessary to ensure the correctness of the system.

Conflict Resolution

Things get more interesting when a reader or writer encounters an intent record or newly-committed value in a location that it needs to read or write. This is a conflict, usually causing either of the transactions to abort or restart depending on the type of conflict.

Transaction restart:

This is the usual (and more efficient) type of behaviour and is used except when the transaction was aborted (for instance by another transaction). In effect, that reduces to two cases; the first being the one outlined above: An SSI transaction that finds upon attempting to commit that its commit timestamp has been pushed. The second case involves a transaction actively encountering a conflict, that is, one of its readers or writers encounter data that necessitate conflict resolution (see transaction interactions below).

When a transaction restarts, it changes its priority and/or moves its timestamp forward depending on data tied to the conflict, and begins anew reusing the same tx id. The prior run of the transaction might have written some write intents, which need to be deleted before the transaction commits, so as to not be included as part of the transaction. These stale write intent deletions are done during the reexecution of the transaction, either implicitly, through writing new intents to the same keys as part of the reexecution of the transaction, or explicitly, by cleaning up stale intents that are not part of the reexecution of the transaction. Since most transactions will end up writing to the same keys, the explicit cleanup run just before committing the transaction is usually a NOOP.

Transaction abort:

This is the case in which a transaction, upon reading its transaction table entry, finds that it has been aborted. In this case, the transaction can not reuse its intents; it returns control to the client before cleaning them up (other readers and writers would clean up dangling intents as they encounter them) but will make an effort to clean up after itself. The next attempt (if applicable) then runs as a new transaction with a new tx id.

Transaction interactions:

There are several scenarios in which transactions interact:

  • Reader encounters write intent or value with newer timestamp far enough in the future: This is not a conflict. The reader is free to proceed; after all, it will be reading an older version of the value and so does not conflict. Recall that the write intent may be committed with a later timestamp than its candidate; it will never commit with an earlier one. Side note: if a SI transaction reader finds an intent with a newer timestamp which the reader’s own transaction has written, the reader always returns that intent's value.

  • Reader encounters write intent or value with newer timestamp in the near future: In this case, we have to be careful. The newer intent may, in absolute terms, have happened in our read's past if the clock of the writer is ahead of the node serving the values. In that case, we would need to take this value into account, but we just don't know. Hence the transaction restarts, using instead a future timestamp (but remembering a maximum timestamp used to limit the uncertainty window to the maximum clock skew). In fact, this is optimized further; see the details under "choosing a time stamp" below.

  • Reader encounters write intent with older timestamp: the reader must follow the intent’s transaction id to the transaction table. If the transaction has already been committed, then the reader can just read the value. If the write transaction has not yet been committed, then the reader has two options. If the write conflict is from an SI transaction, the reader can push that transaction's commit timestamp into the future (and consequently not have to read it). This is simple to do: the reader just updates the transaction’s commit timestamp to indicate that when/if the transaction does commit, it should use a timestamp at least as high. However, if the write conflict is from an SSI transaction, the reader must compare priorities. If the reader has the higher priority, it pushes the transaction’s commit timestamp (that transaction will then notice its timestamp has been pushed, and restart). If it has the lower or same priority, it retries itself using as a new priority max(new random priority, conflicting txn’s priority - 1).

  • Writer encounters uncommitted write intent: If the other write intent has been written by a transaction with a lower priority, the writer aborts the conflicting transaction. If the write intent has a higher or equal priority the transaction retries, using as a new priority max(new random priority, conflicting txn’s priority - 1); the retry occurs after a short, randomized backoff interval.

  • Writer encounters newer committed value: The committed value could also be an unresolved write intent made by a transaction that has already committed. The transaction restarts. On restart, the same priority is reused, but the candidate timestamp is moved forward to the encountered value's timestamp.

  • Writer encounters more recently read key: The read timestamp cache is consulted on each write at a node. If the write’s candidate timestamp is earlier than the low water mark on the cache itself (i.e. its last evicted timestamp) or if the key being written has a read timestamp later than the write’s candidate timestamp, this later timestamp value is returned with the write. A new timestamp forces a transaction restart only if it is serializable.

Transaction management

Transactions are managed by the client proxy (or gateway in SQL Azure parlance). Unlike in Spanner, writes are not buffered but are sent directly to all implicated ranges. This allows the transaction to abort quickly if it encounters a write conflict. The client proxy keeps track of all written keys in order to resolve write intents asynchronously upon transaction completion. If a transaction commits successfully, all intents are upgraded to committed. In the event a transaction is aborted, all written intents are deleted. The client proxy doesn’t guarantee it will resolve intents.

In the event the client proxy restarts before the pending transaction is committed, the dangling transaction would continue to live in the transaction table until aborted by another transaction. Transactions heartbeat the transaction table every five seconds by default. Transactions encountered by readers or writers with dangling intents which haven’t been heartbeat within the required interval are aborted. In the event the proxy restarts after a transaction commits but before the asynchronous resolution is complete, the dangling intents are upgraded when encountered by future readers and writers and the system does not depend on their timely resolution for correctness.

An exploration of retries with contention and abort times with abandoned transaction is here.

Transaction Table

Please see roachpb/data.proto for the up-to-date structures, the best entry point being message Transaction.

Pros

  • No requirement for reliable code execution to prevent stalled 2PC protocol.
  • Readers never block with SI semantics; with SSI semantics, they may abort.
  • Lower latency than traditional 2PC commit protocol (w/o contention) because second phase requires only a single write to the transaction table instead of a synchronous round to all transaction participants.
  • Priorities avoid starvation for arbitrarily long transactions and always pick a winner from between contending transactions (no mutual aborts).
  • Writes not buffered at client; writes fail fast.
  • No read-locking overhead required for serializable SI (in contrast to other SSI implementations).
  • Well-chosen (i.e. less random) priorities can flexibly give probabilistic guarantees on latency for arbitrary transactions (for example: make OLTP transactions 10x less likely to abort than low priority transactions, such as asynchronously scheduled jobs).

Cons

  • Reads from non-lease holder replicas still require a ping to the lease holder update read timestamp cache.
  • Abandoned transactions may block contending writers for up to the heartbeat interval, though average wait is likely to be considerably shorter (see graph in link). This is likely considerably more performant than detecting and restarting 2PC in order to release read and write locks.
  • Behavior different than other SI implementations: no first writer wins, and shorter transactions do not always finish quickly. Element of surprise for OLTP systems may be a problematic factor.
  • Aborts can decrease throughput in a contended system compared with two phase locking. Aborts and retries increase read and write traffic, increase latency and decrease throughput.

Choosing a Timestamp

A key challenge of reading data in a distributed system with clock skew is choosing a timestamp guaranteed to be greater than the latest timestamp of any committed transaction (in absolute time). No system can claim consistency and fail to read already-committed data.

Accomplishing consistency for transactions (or just single operations) accessing a single node is easy. The timestamp is assigned by the node itself, so it is guaranteed to be at a greater timestamp than all the existing timestamped data on the node.

For multiple nodes, the timestamp of the node coordinating the transaction t is used. In addition, a maximum timestamp t+ε is supplied to provide an upper bound on timestamps for already-committed data (ε is the maximum clock skew). As the transaction progresses, any data read which have timestamps greater than t but less than t+ε cause the transaction to abort and retry with the conflicting timestamp tc, where tc > t. The maximum timestamp t+ε remains the same. This implies that transaction restarts due to clock uncertainty can only happen on a time interval of length ε.

We apply another optimization to reduce the restarts caused by uncertainty. Upon restarting, the transaction not only takes into account tc, but the timestamp of the node at the time of the uncertain read tnode. The larger of those two timestamps tc and tnode (likely equal to the latter) is used to increase the read timestamp. Additionally, the conflicting node is marked as “certain”. Then, for future reads to that node within the transaction, we set MaxTimestamp = Read Timestamp, preventing further uncertainty restarts.

Correctness follows from the fact that we know that at the time of the read, there exists no version of any key on that node with a higher timestamp than tnode. Upon a restart caused by the node, if the transaction encounters a key with a higher timestamp, it knows that in absolute time, the value was written after tnode was obtained, i.e. after the uncertain read. Hence the transaction can move forward reading an older version of the data (at the transaction's timestamp). This limits the time uncertainty restarts attributed to a node to at most one. The tradeoff is that we might pick a timestamp larger than the optimal one (> highest conflicting timestamp), resulting in the possibility of a few more conflicts.

We expect retries will be rare, but this assumption may need to be revisited if retries become problematic. Note that this problem does not apply to historical reads. An alternate approach which does not require retries makes a round to all node participants in advance and chooses the highest reported node wall time as the timestamp. However, knowing which nodes will be accessed in advance is difficult and potentially limiting. Cockroach could also potentially use a global clock (Google did this with Percolator), which would be feasible for smaller, geographically-proximate clusters.

Linearizability

First a word about Spanner. By combining judicious use of wait intervals with accurate time signals, Spanner provides a global ordering between any two non-overlapping transactions (in absolute time) with ~14ms latencies. Put another way: Spanner guarantees that if a transaction T1 commits (in absolute time) before another transaction T2 starts, then T1's assigned commit timestamp is smaller than T2's. Using atomic clocks and GPS receivers, Spanner reduces their clock skew uncertainty to \< 10ms (ε). To make good on the promised guarantee, transactions must take at least double the clock skew uncertainty interval to commit (). See this article for a helpful overview of Spanner’s concurrency control.

Cockroach could make the same guarantees without specialized hardware, at the expense of longer wait times. If servers in the cluster were configured to work only with NTP, transaction wait times would likely to be in excess of 150ms. For wide-area zones, this would be somewhat mitigated by overlap from cross datacenter link latencies. If clocks were made more accurate, the minimal limit for commit latencies would improve.

However, let’s take a step back and evaluate whether Spanner’s external consistency guarantee is worth the automatic commit wait. First, if the commit wait is omitted completely, the system still yields a consistent view of the map at an arbitrary timestamp. However with clock skew, it would become possible for commit timestamps on non-overlapping but causally related transactions to suffer temporal reverse. In other words, the following scenario is possible for a client without global ordering:

  • Start transaction T1 to modify value x with commit time s1

  • On commit of T1, start T2 to modify value y with commit time s2

  • Read x and y and discover that s1 > s2 (!)

The external consistency which Spanner guarantees is referred to as linearizability. It goes beyond serializability by preserving information about the causality inherent in how external processes interacted with the database. The strength of Spanner’s guarantee can be formulated as follows: any two processes, with clock skew within expected bounds, may independently record their wall times for the completion of transaction T1 (T1end) and start of transaction T2 (T2start) respectively, and if later compared such that T1end \< T2start, then commit timestamps s1 \< s2. This guarantee is broad enough to completely cover all cases of explicit causality, in addition to covering any and all imaginable scenarios of implicit causality.

Our contention is that causality is chiefly important from the perspective of a single client or a chain of successive clients (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears…). As such, Cockroach provides two mechanisms to provide linearizability for the vast majority of use cases without a mandatory transaction commit wait or an elaborate system to minimize clock skew.

1. Clients provide the highest transaction commit timestamp with successive transactions. This allows node clocks from previous transactions to effectively participate in the formulation of the commit timestamp for the current transaction. This guarantees linearizability for transactions committed by this client.

Newly launched clients wait at least 2 * ε from process start time before beginning their first transaction. This preserves the same property even on client restart, and the wait will be mitigated by process initialization.

All causally-related events within Cockroach maintain linearizability.

2. Committed transactions respond with a commit wait parameter which represents the remaining time in the nominal commit wait. This will typically be less than the full commit wait as the consensus write at the coordinator accounts for a portion of it.

Clients taking any action outside of another Cockroach transaction (e.g. writing to another distributed system component) can either choose to wait the remaining interval before proceeding, or alternatively, pass the wait and/or commit timestamp to the execution of the outside action for its consideration. This pushes the burden of linearizability to clients, but is a useful tool in mitigating commit latencies if the clock skew is potentially large. This functionality can be used for ordering in the face of backchannel dependencies as mentioned in the AugmentedTime paper.

Using these mechanisms in place of commit wait, Cockroach’s guarantee can be formulated as follows: any process which signals the start of transaction T2 (T2start) after the completion of transaction T1 (T1end), will have commit timestamps such thats1 \< s2.

Logical Map Content

Logically, the map contains a series of reserved system key / value pairs covering accounting, range metadata and node accounting before the actual key / value pairs for non-system data (e.g. the actual meat of the map).

  • \0\0meta1 Range metadata for location of \0\0meta2.
  • \0\0meta1<key1> Range metadata for location of \0\0meta2<key1>.
  • ...
  • \0\0meta1<keyN>: Range metadata for location of \0\0meta2<keyN>.
  • \0\0meta2: Range metadata for location of first non-range metadata key.
  • \0\0meta2<key1>: Range metadata for location of <key1>.
  • ...
  • \0\0meta2<keyN>: Range metadata for location of <keyN>.
  • \0acct<key0>: Accounting for key prefix key0.
  • ...
  • \0acct<keyN>: Accounting for key prefix keyN.
  • \0node<node-address0>: Accounting data for node 0.
  • ...
  • \0node<node-addressN>: Accounting data for node N.
  • \0tree_root: Range key for root of range-spanning tree.
  • \0tx<tx-id0>: Transaction record for transaction 0.
  • ...
  • \0tx<tx-idN>: Transaction record for transaction N.
  • \0zone<key0>: Zone information for key prefix key0.
  • ...
  • \0zone<keyN>: Zone information for key prefix keyN.
  • <>acctd<metric0>: Accounting data for Metric 0 for empty key prefix.
  • ...
  • <>acctd<metricN>: Accounting data for Metric N for empty key prefix.
  • <key0>: <value0> The first user data key.**
  • ...
  • <keyN>: <valueN> The last user data key.**

There are some additional system entries sprinkled amongst the non-system keys. See the Key-Prefix Accounting section in this document for further details.

Node Storage

Nodes maintain a separate instance of RocksDB for each disk. Each RocksDB instance hosts any number of ranges. RPCs arriving at a RoachNode are multiplexed based on the disk name to the appropriate RocksDB instance. A single instance per disk is used to avoid contention. If every range maintained its own RocksDB, global management of available cache memory would be impossible and writers for each range would compete for non-contiguous writes to multiple RocksDB logs.

In addition to the key/value pairs of the range itself, various range metadata is maintained.

  • range-spanning tree node links

  • participating replicas

  • consensus metadata

  • split/merge activity

A really good reference on tuning Linux installations with RocksDB is here.

Range Metadata

The default approximate size of a range is 64M (2\^26 B). In order to support 1P (2\^50 B) of logical data, metadata is needed for roughly 2\^(50 - 26) = 2\^24 ranges. A reasonable upper bound on range metadata size is roughly 256 bytes (3*12 bytes for the triplicated node locations and 220 bytes for the range key itself). 2\^24 ranges * 2\^8 B would require roughly 4G (2\^32 B) to store--too much to duplicate between machines. Our conclusion is that range metadata must be distributed for large installations.

To keep key lookups relatively fast in the presence of distributed metadata, we store all the top-level metadata in a single range (the first range). These top-level metadata keys are known as meta1 keys, and are prefixed such that they sort to the beginning of the key space. Given the metadata size of 256 bytes given above, a single 64M range would support 64M/256B = 2\^18 ranges, which gives a total storage of 64M * 2\^18 = 16T. To support the 1P quoted above, we need two levels of indirection, where the first level addresses the second, and the second addresses user data. With two levels of indirection, we can address 2\^(18 + 18) = 2\^36 ranges; each range addresses 2\^26 B, and altogether we address 2\^(36+26) B = 2\^62 B = 4E of user data.

For a given user-addressable key1, the associated meta1 record is found at the successor key to key1 in the meta1 space. Since the meta1 space is sparse, the successor key is defined as the next key which is present. The meta1 record identifies the range containing the meta2 record, which is found using the same process. The meta2 record identifies the range containing key1, which is again found the same way (see examples below).

Concretely, metadata keys are prefixed by \0\0meta{1,2}; the two null characters provide for the desired sorting behaviour. Thus, key1's meta1 record will reside at the successor key to \0\0\meta1<key1>.

Note: we append the end key of each range to meta{1,2} records because the RocksDB iterator only supports a Seek() interface which acts as a Ceil(). Using the start key of the range would cause Seek() to find the key after the meta indexing record we’re looking for, which would result in having to back the iterator up, an option which is both less efficient and not available in all cases.

The following example shows the directory structure for a map with three ranges worth of data. Ellipses indicate additional key/value pairs to fill an entire range of data. Except for the fact that splitting ranges requires updates to the range metadata with knowledge of the metadata layout, the range metadata itself requires no special treatment or bootstrapping.

Range 0 (located on servers dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000)

  • \0\0meta1\xff: dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000
  • \0\0meta2<lastkey0>: dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000
  • \0\0meta2<lastkey1>: dcrama4:8000, dcrama5:8000, dcrama6:8000
  • \0\0meta2\xff: dcrama7:8000, dcrama8:8000, dcrama9:8000
  • ...
  • <lastkey0>: <lastvalue0>

Range 1 (located on servers dcrama4:8000, dcrama5:8000, dcrama6:8000)

  • ...
  • <lastkey1>: <lastvalue1>

Range 2 (located on servers dcrama7:8000, dcrama8:8000, dcrama9:8000)

  • ...
  • <lastkey2>: <lastvalue2>

Consider a simpler example of a map containing less than a single range of data. In this case, all range metadata and all data are located in the same range:

Range 0 (located on servers dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000)*

  • \0\0meta1\xff: dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000
  • \0\0meta2\xff: dcrama1:8000, dcrama2:8000, dcrama3:8000
  • <key0>: <value0>
  • ...

Finally, a map large enough to need both levels of indirection would look like (note that instead of showing range replicas, this example is simplified to just show range indexes):

Range 0

  • \0\0meta1<lastkeyN-1>: Range 0
  • \0\0meta1\xff: Range 1
  • \0\0meta2<lastkey1>: Range 1
  • \0\0meta2<lastkey2>: Range 2
  • \0\0meta2<lastkey3>: Range 3
  • ...
  • \0\0meta2<lastkeyN-1>: Range 262143

Range 1

  • \0\0meta2<lastkeyN>: Range 262144
  • \0\0meta2<lastkeyN+1>: Range 262145
  • ...
  • \0\0meta2\xff: Range 500,000
  • ...
  • <lastkey1>: <lastvalue1>

Range 2

  • ...
  • <lastkey2>: <lastvalue2>

Range 3

  • ...
  • <lastkey3>: <lastvalue3>

Range 262144

  • ...
  • <lastkeyN>: <lastvalueN>

Range 262145

  • ...
  • <lastkeyN+1>: <lastvalueN+1>

Note that the choice of range 262144 is just an approximation. The actual number of ranges addressable via a single metadata range is dependent on the size of the keys. If efforts are made to keep key sizes small, the total number of addressable ranges would increase and vice versa.

From the examples above it’s clear that key location lookups require at most three reads to get the value for <key>:

1. lower bound of \0\0meta1<key> 2. lower bound of \0\0meta2<key>, 3. <key>.

For small maps, the entire lookup is satisfied in a single RPC to Range 0. Maps containing less than 16T of data would require two lookups. Clients cache both levels of range metadata, and we expect that data locality for individual clients will be high. Clients may end up with stale cache entries. If on a lookup, the range consulted does not match the client’s expectations, the client evicts the stale entries and possibly does a new lookup.

Raft - Consistency of Range Replicas

Each range is configured to consist of three or more replicas, as specified by their ZoneConfig. The replicas in a range maintain their own instance of a distributed consensus algorithm. We use the Raft consensus algorithm as it is simpler to reason about and includes a reference implementation covering important details. ePaxos has promising performance characteristics for WAN-distributed replicas, but it does not guarantee a consistent ordering between replicas.

Raft elects a relatively long-lived leader which must be involved to propose commands. It heartbeats followers periodically and keeps their logs replicated. In the absence of heartbeats, followers become candidates after randomized election timeouts and proceed to hold new leader elections. Cockroach weights random timeouts such that the replicas with shorter round trip times to peers are more likely to hold elections first (not implemented yet). Only the Raft leader may propose commands; followers will simply relay commands to the last known leader.

Our Raft implementation was developed together with CoreOS, but adds an extra layer of optimization to account for the fact that a single Node may have millions of consensus groups (one for each Range). Areas of optimization are chiefly coalesced heartbeats (so that the number of nodes dictates the number of heartbeats as opposed to the much larger number of ranges) and batch processing of requests. Future optimizations may include two-phase elections and quiescent ranges (i.e. stopping traffic completely for inactive ranges).

Range Leases

As outlined in the Raft section, the replicas of a Range are organized as a Raft group and execute commands from their shared commit log. Going through Raft is an expensive operation though, and there are tasks which should only be carried out by a single replica at a time (as opposed to all of them).

For these reasons, Cockroach introduces the concept of Range Leases: This is a lease held for a slice of (database, i.e. hybrid logical) time and is established by committing a special log entry through Raft containing the interval the lease is going to be active on, along with the Node:RaftID combination that uniquely describes the requesting replica. Reads and writes must generally be addressed to the replica holding the lease; if none does, any replica may be addressed, causing it to try to obtain the lease synchronously. Requests received by a non-lease holder (for the HLC timestamp specified in the request's header) fail with an error pointing at the replica's last known lease holder. These requests are retried transparently with the updated lease by the gateway node and never reach the client.

The replica holding the lease is in charge or involved in handling Range-specific maintenance tasks such as

  • gossiping the sentinel and/or first range information
  • splitting, merging and rebalancing

and, very importantly, may satisfy reads locally, without incurring the overhead of going through Raft.

Since reads bypass Raft, a new lease holder will, among other things, ascertain that its timestamp cache does not report timestamps smaller than the previous lease holder's (so that it's compatible with reads which may have occurred on the former lease holder). This is accomplished by setting the low water mark of the timestamp cache to the expiration of the previous lease plus the maximum clock offset.

Relationship to Raft leadership

The range lease is completely separate from Raft leadership, and so without further efforts, Raft leadership and the Range lease may not be represented by the same replica most of the time. This is convenient semantically since it decouples these two types of leadership and allows the use of Raft as a "black box", but for reasons of performance, it is desirable to have both on the same replica. Otherwise, sending a command through Raft always incurs the overhead of being proposed to the Range lease holder's Raft instance first, which must relay it to the Raft leader, which finally commits it into the log and updates its followers, including the Range lease holder. This yields correct results but wastes several round-trip delays, and so we will make sure that in the vast majority of cases Range lease and Raft leadership coincide. A fairly easy method for achieving this is to have each new lease period (extension or new) be accompanied by a stipulation to the lease holder's replica to start Raft elections (unless it's already leading), though some care should be taken that Range lease holdership is relatively stable and long-lived to avoid a large number of Raft leadership transitions.

Command Execution Flow

This subsection describes how a lease holder replica processes a read/write command in more details. Each command specifies (1) a key (or a range of keys) that the command accesses and (2) the ID of a range which the key(s) belongs to. When receiving a command, a RoachNode looks up a range by the specified Range ID and checks if the range is still responsible for the supplied keys. If any of the keys do not belong to the range, the RoachNode returns an error so that the client will retry and send a request to a correct range.

When all the keys belong to the range, the RoachNode attempts to process the command. If the command is an inconsistent read-only command, it is processed immediately. If the command is a consistent read or a write, the command is executed when both of the following conditions hold:

  • The range replica has a range lease.
  • There are no other running commands whose keys overlap with the submitted command and cause read/write conflict.

When the first condition is not met, the replica attempts to acquire a lease or returns an error so that the client will redirect the command to the current lease holder. The second condition guarantees that consistent read/write commands for a given key are sequentially executed.

When the above two conditions are met, the lease holder replica processes the command. Consistent reads are processed on the lease holder immediately. Write commands are committed into the Raft log so that every replica will execute the same commands. All commands produce deterministic results so that the range replicas keep consistent states among them.

When a write command completes, all the replica updates their response cache to ensure idempotency. When a read command completes, the lease holder replica updates its timestamp cache to keep track of the latest read for a given key.

There is a chance that a range lease gets expired while a command is executed. Before executing a command, each replica checks if a replica proposing the command has a still lease. When the lease has been expired, the command will be rejected by the replica.

Splitting / Merging Ranges

RoachNodes split or merge ranges based on whether they exceed maximum or minimum thresholds for capacity or load. Ranges exceeding maximums for either capacity or load are split; ranges below minimums for both capacity and load are merged.

Ranges maintain the same accounting statistics as accounting key prefixes. These boil down to a time series of data points with minute granularity. Everything from number of bytes to read/write queue sizes. Arbitrary distillations of the accounting stats can be determined as the basis for splitting / merging. Two sensible metrics for use with split/merge are range size in bytes and IOps. A good metric for rebalancing a replica from one node to another would be total read/write queue wait times. These metrics are gossipped, with each range / node passing along relevant metrics if they’re in the bottom or top of the range it’s aware of.

A range finding itself exceeding either capacity or load threshold splits. To this end, the range lease holder computes an appropriate split key candidate and issues the split through Raft. In contrast to splitting, merging requires a range to be below the minimum threshold for both capacity and load. A range being merged chooses the smaller of the ranges immediately preceding and succeeding it.

Splitting, merging, rebalancing and recovering all follow the same basic algorithm for moving data between roach nodes. New target replicas are created and added to the replica set of source range. Then each new replica is brought up to date by either replaying the log in full or copying a snapshot of the source replica data and then replaying the log from the timestamp of the snapshot to catch up fully. Once the new replicas are fully up to date, the range metadata is updated and old, source replica(s) deleted if applicable.

Coordinator (lease holder replica)

if splitting
  SplitRange(split_key): splits happen locally on range replicas and
  only after being completed locally, are moved to new target replicas.
else if merging
  Choose new replicas on same servers as target range replicas;
  add to replica set.
else if rebalancing || recovering
  Choose new replica(s) on least loaded servers; add to replica set.

New Replica

Bring replica up to date:

if all info can be read from replicated log
  copy replicated log
else
  snapshot source replica
  send successive ReadRange requests to source replica
  referencing snapshot

if merging
  combine ranges on all replicas
else if rebalancing || recovering
  remove old range replica(s)

RoachNodes split ranges when the total data in a range exceeds a configurable maximum threshold. Similarly, ranges are merged when the total data falls below a configurable minimum threshold.

TBD: flesh this out: Especially for merges (but also rebalancing) we have a range disappearing from the local node; that range needs to disappear gracefully, with a smooth handoff of operation to the new owner of its data.

Ranges are rebalanced if a node determines its load or capacity is one of the worst in the cluster based on gossipped load stats. A node with spare capacity is chosen in the same datacenter and a special-case split is done which simply duplicates the data 1:1 and resets the range configuration metadata.

Range-Spanning Binary Tree

A crucial enhancement to the organization of range metadata is to augment the bi-level range metadata lookup with a minimum spanning tree, implemented as a left-leaning red-black tree over all ranges in the map. This tree structure allows the system to start at any key prefix and efficiently traverse an arbitrary key range with minimal RPC traffic, minimal fan-in and fan-out, and with bounded time complexity equal to 2*log N steps, where N is the total number of ranges in the system.

Unlike the range metadata rows prefixed with \0\0meta[1|2], the metadata for the range-spanning tree (e.g. parent range and left / right child ranges) is stored directly at the ranges as non-map metadata. The metadata for each node of the tree (e.g. links to parent range, left child range, and right child range) is stored with the range metadata. In effect, the tree metadata is stored implicitly. In order to traverse the tree, for example, you’d need to query each range in turn for its metadata.

Any time a range is split or merged, both the bi-level range lookup metadata and the per-range binary tree metadata are updated as part of the same distributed transaction. The total number of nodes involved in the update is bounded by 2 + log N (i.e. 2 updates for meta1 and meta2, and up to log N updates to balance the range-spanning tree). The range corresponding to the root node of the tree is stored in \0tree_root.

As an example, consider the following set of nine ranges and their associated range-spanning tree:

R0: aa - cc, R1: *cc - lll, R2: *lll - llr, R3: *llr - nn, R4: *nn - rr, R5: *rr - ssss, R6: *ssss - sst, R7: *sst - vvv, R8: *vvv - zzzz.

Range Tree

The range-spanning tree has many beneficial uses in Cockroach. It provides a ready made solution to scheduling mappers and sorting / reducing during map-reduce operations. It also provides a mechanism for visiting every Raft replica range which comprises a logical key range. This is used to periodically find the oldest extant write intent over the entire system.

The range-spanning tree provides a convenient mechanism for planning and executing parallel queries. These provide the basis for Dremel-like query execution trees and it’s easy to imagine supporting a subset of SQL or even javascript-based user functions for complex data analysis tasks.

Node Allocation (via Gossip)

New nodes must be allocated when a range is split. Instead of requiring every RoachNode to know about the status of all or even a large number of peer nodes --or-- alternatively requiring a specialized curator or master with sufficiently global knowledge, we use a gossip protocol to efficiently communicate only interesting information between all of the nodes in the cluster. What’s interesting information? One example would be whether a particular node has a lot of spare capacity. Each node, when gossiping, compares each topic of gossip to its own state. If its own state is somehow “more interesting” than the least interesting item in the topic it’s seen recently, it includes its own state as part of the next gossip session with a peer node. In this way, a node with capacity sufficiently in excess of the mean quickly becomes discovered by the entire cluster. To avoid piling onto outliers, nodes from the high capacity set are selected at random for allocation.

The gossip protocol itself contains two primary components:

  • Peer Selection: each node maintains up to N peers with which it regularly communicates. It selects peers with an eye towards maximizing fanout. A peer node which itself communicates with an array of otherwise unknown nodes will be selected over one which communicates with a set containing significant overlap. Each time gossip is initiated, each nodes’ set of peers is exchanged. Each node is then free to incorporate the other’s peers as it sees fit. To avoid any node suffering from excess incoming requests, a node may refuse to answer a gossip exchange. Each node is biased towards answering requests from nodes without significant overlap and refusing requests otherwise.

    Peers are efficiently selected using a heuristic as described in Agarwal & Trachtenberg (2006).

    TBD: how to avoid partitions? Need to work out a simulation of the protocol to tune the behavior and see empirically how well it works.

  • Gossip Selection: what to communicate. Gossip is divided into topics. Load characteristics (capacity per disk, cpu load, and state [e.g. draining, ok, failure]) are used to drive node allocation. Range statistics (range read/write load, missing replicas, unavailable ranges) and network topology (inter-rack bandwidth/latency, inter-datacenter bandwidth/latency, subnet outages) are used for determining when to split ranges, when to recover replicas vs. wait for network connectivity, and for debugging / sysops. In all cases, a set of minimums and a set of maximums is propagated; each node applies its own view of the world to augment the values. Each minimum and maximum value is tagged with the reporting node and other accompanying contextual information. Each topic of gossip has its own protobuf to hold the structured data. The number of items of gossip in each topic is limited by a configurable bound.

    For efficiency, nodes assign each new item of gossip a sequence number and keep track of the highest sequence number each peer node has seen. Each round of gossip communicates only the delta containing new items.

Node Accounting

The gossip protocol discussed in the previous section is useful to quickly communicate fragments of important information in a decentralized manner. However, complete accounting for each node is also stored to a central location, available to any dashboard process. This is done using the map itself. Each node periodically writes its state to the map with keys prefixed by \0node, similar to the first level of range metadata, but with an ‘node’ suffix. Each value is a protobuf containing the full complement of node statistics--everything communicated normally via the gossip protocol plus other useful, but non-critical data.

The range containing the first key in the node accounting table is responsible for gossiping the total count of nodes. This total count is used by the gossip network to most efficiently organize itself. In particular, the maximum number of hops for gossipped information to take before reaching a node is given by ceil(log(node count) / log(max fanout)) + 1.

Key-prefix Accounting and Zones

Arbitrarily fine-grained accounting is specified via key prefixes. Key prefixes can overlap, as is necessary for capturing hierarchical relationships. For illustrative purposes, let’s say keys specifying rows in a set of databases have the following format:

<db>:<table>:<primary-key>[:<secondary-key>]

In this case, we might collect accounting with key prefixes:

db1, db1:user, db1:order,

Accounting is kept for the entire map by default.

Accounting

to keep accounting for a range defined by a key prefix, an entry is created in the accounting system table. The format of accounting table keys is:

\0acct<key-prefix>

In practice, we assume each RoachNode capable of caching the entire accounting table as it is likely to be relatively small.

Accounting is kept for key prefix ranges with eventual consistency for efficiency. There are two types of values which comprise accounting: counts and occurrences, for lack of better terms. Counts describe system state, such as the total number of bytes, rows, etc. Occurrences include transient performance and load metrics. Both types of accounting are captured as time series with minute granularity. The length of time accounting metrics are kept is configurable. Below are examples of each type of accounting value.

System State Counters/Performance

  • Count of items (e.g. rows)
  • Total bytes
  • Total key bytes
  • Total value length
  • Queued message count
  • Queued message total bytes
  • Count of values \< 16B
  • Count of values \< 64B
  • Count of values \< 256B
  • Count of values \< 1K
  • Count of values \< 4K
  • Count of values \< 16K
  • Count of values \< 64K
  • Count of values \< 256K
  • Count of values \< 1M
  • Count of values > 1M
  • Total bytes of accounting

Load Occurrences

  • Get op count
  • Get total MB
  • Put op count
  • Put total MB
  • Delete op count
  • Delete total MB
  • Delete range op count
  • Delete range total MB
  • Scan op count
  • Scan op MB
  • Split count
  • Merge count

Because accounting information is kept as time series and over many possible metrics of interest, the data can become numerous. Accounting data are stored in the map near the key prefix described, in order to distribute load (for both aggregation and storage).

Accounting keys for system state have the form: <key-prefix>|acctd<metric-name>*. Notice the leading ‘pipe’ character. It’s meant to sort the root level account AFTER any other system tables. They must increment the same underlying values as they are permanent counts, and not transient activity. Logic at the RoachNode takes care of snapshotting the value into an appropriately suffixed (e.g. with timestamp hour) multi-value time series entry.

Keys for perf/load metrics: <key-prefix>acctd<metric-name><hourly-timestamp>.

<hourly-timestamp>-suffixed accounting entries are multi-valued, containing a varint64 entry for each minute with activity during the specified hour.

To efficiently keep accounting over large key ranges, the task of aggregation must be distributed. If activity occurs within the same range as the key prefix for accounting, the updates are made as part of the consensus write. If the ranges differ, then a message is sent to the parent range to increment the accounting. If upon receiving the message, the parent range also does not include the key prefix, it in turn forwards it to its parent or left child in the balanced binary tree which is maintained to describe the range hierarchy. This limits the number of messages before an update is visible at the root to 2*log N, where N is the number of ranges in the key prefix.

Zones

zones are stored in the map with keys prefixed by \0zone followed by the key prefix to which the zone configuration applies. Zone values specify a protobuf containing the datacenters from which replicas for ranges which fall under the zone must be chosen.

Please see config/config.proto for up-to-date data structures used, the best entry point being message ZoneConfig.

If zones are modified in situ, each RoachNode verifies the existing zones for its ranges against the zone configuration. If it discovers differences, it reconfigures ranges in the same way that it rebalances away from busy nodes, via special-case 1:1 split to a duplicate range comprising the new configuration.

Key-Value API

see the protobufs in roachpb/, in particular roachpb/api.proto and the comments within.

Structured Data API

A preliminary design can be found in the Go source documentation.

Appendix

Datastore Goal Articulation

There are other important axes involved in data-stores which are less well understood and/or explained. There is lots of cross-dependency, but it's safe to segregate two more of them as (a) scan efficiency, and (b) read vs write optimization.

Datastore Scan Efficiency Spectrum

Scan efficiency refers to the number of IO ops required to scan a set of sorted adjacent rows matching a criteria. However, it's a complicated topic, because of the options (or lack of options) for controlling physical order in different systems.

  • Some designs either default to or only support "heap organized" physical records (Oracle, MySQL, Postgres, SQLite, MongoDB). In this design, a naive sorted-scan of an index involves one IO op per record.
  • In these systems it's possible to "fully cover" a sorted-query in an index with some write-amplification.
  • In some systems it's possible to put the primary record data in a sorted btree instead of a heap-table (default in MySQL/Innodb, option in Oracle).
  • Sorted-order LSM NoSQL could be considered index-organized-tables, with efficient scans by the row-key. (HBase).
  • Some NoSQL is not optimized for sorted-order retrieval, because of hash-bucketing, primarily based on the Dynamo design. (Cassandra, Riak)

Read vs. Write Optimization Spectrum

Read vs write optimization is a product of the underlying sorted-order data-structure used. Btrees are read-optimized. Hybrid write-deferred trees are a balance of read-and-write optimizations (shuttle-trees, fractal-trees, stratified-trees). LSM separates write-incorporation into a separate step, offering a tunable amount of read-to-write optimization. An "ideal" LSM at 0%-write-incorporation is a log, and at 100%-write-incorporation is a btree.

The topic of LSM is confused by the fact that LSM is not an algorithm, but a design pattern, and usage of LSM is hindered by the lack of a de-facto optimal LSM design. LevelDB/RocksDB is one of the more practical LSM implementations, but it is far from optimal. Popular text-indicies like Lucene are non-general purpose instances of write-optimized LSM.

Further, there is a dependency between access pattern (read-modify-write vs blind-write and write-fraction), cache-hitrate, and ideal sorted-order algorithm selection. At a certain write-fraction and read-cache-hitrate, systems achieve higher total throughput with write-optimized designs, at the cost of increased worst-case read latency. As either write-fraction or read-cache-hitrate approaches 1.0, write-optimized designs provide dramatically better sustained system throughput when record-sizes are small relative to IO sizes.

Given this information, data-stores can be sliced by their sorted-order storage algorithm selection. Btree stores are read-optimized (Oracle, SQLServer, Postgres, SQLite2, MySQL, MongoDB, CouchDB), hybrid stores are read-optimized with better write-throughput (Tokutek MySQL/MongoDB), while LSM-variants are write-optimized (HBase, Cassandra, SQLite3/LSM, CockroachDB).

Architecture

CockroachDB implements a layered architecture, with various subdirectories implementing layers as appropriate. The highest level of abstraction is the [SQL layer][5], which depends directly on the structured data API. The structured data API provides familiar relational concepts such as schemas, tables, columns, and indexes. The structured data API in turn depends on the [distributed key value store][7] ([kv/][8]). The distributed key value store handles the details of range addressing to provide the abstraction of a single, monolithic key value store. It communicates with any number of [RoachNodes][9] ([server/][10]), storing the actual data. Each node contains one or more [stores][11] ([storage/][12]), one per physical device.

Each store contains potentially many ranges, the lowest-level unit of key-value data. Ranges are replicated using the [Raft][2] consensus protocol. The diagram below is a blown up version of stores from four of the five nodes in the previous diagram. Each range is replicated three ways using raft. The color coding shows associated range replicas.

Client Architecture

RoachNodes serve client traffic using a fully-featured SQL API which accepts requests as either application/x-protobuf or application/json. Client implementations consist of an HTTP sender (transport) and a transactional sender which implements a simple exponential backoff / retry protocol, depending on CockroachDB error codes.

The DB client gateway accepts incoming requests and sends them through a transaction coordinator, which handles transaction heartbeats on behalf of clients, provides optimization pathways, and resolves write intents on transaction commit or abort. The transaction coordinator passes requests onto a distributed sender, which looks up index metadata, caches the results, and routes internode RPC traffic based on where the index metadata indicates keys are located in the distributed cluster.

In addition to the gateway for external DB client traffic, each RoachNode provides the full key/value API (including all internal methods) via a Go RPC server endpoint. The RPC server endpoint forwards requests to one or more local stores depending on the specified key range.

Internally, each RoachNode uses the Go implementation of the CockroachDB client in order to transactionally update system key/value data; for example during split and merge operations to update index metadata records. Unlike an external application, the internal client eschews the HTTP sender and instead directly shares the transaction coordinator and distributed sender used by the DB client gateway.

[0]: http://rocksdb.org/
[1]: https://github.com/google/leveldb
[2]: https://ramcloud.stanford.edu/wiki/download/attachments/11370504/raft.pdf
[3]: http://research.google.com/archive/spanner.html
[4]: http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36971.html
[5]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/tree/master/sql
[7]: https://godoc.org/github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/kv
[8]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/tree/master/kv
[9]: https://godoc.org/github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/server
[10]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/tree/master/server
[11]: https://godoc.org/github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/storage
[12]: https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/tree/master/storage
相关文章