Jepsen 回過頭來測試 MySQL 8.0

Hacker News 上看到作者自己貼的:「Jepsen: MySQL 8.0.34 (jepsen.io)」,原文在「MySQL 8.0.34」。

這次的測試不是 Oracle 付費讓 Jepsen 測,而是 Jepsen 這邊自己回頭測試 MySQL 8.0:

This work was performed independently without compensation, and conducted in accordance with the Jepsen ethics policy.

然後意外的流彈 (或是榴彈?) 打下了 AWSRDS,測出 RDS 在 cluster 模式下無法達到 SERIALIZABILITY

As a lagniappe, we show that AWS RDS MySQL clusters routinely violate Serializability.

然後 MySQL 本體則是找到 REPEATABLE-READ (預設 isolation level) 的問題:

Using our transaction consistency checker Elle, we show that MySQL Repeatable Read also violates internal consistency. Furthermore, it violates Monotonic Atomic View: transactions can observe some of another transaction’s effects, then later fail to observe other effects of that same transaction. We demonstrate violations of ANSI SQL’s requirements for Repeatable Read.

文章的前面一大段在寫歷史,解釋 ANSI 當初的 SQL 標準在定義 isolation level 時寫的很差,導致有很多不同的解讀,而且即使到了 SQL:2023 也還是沒有改善。

接著則是提到各家資料庫宣稱的 isolation level 跟 ANSI 定義的又不一樣的問題... (包括了無論怎麼解讀 ANSI 定義的情況)

不過中間有提到 1999 年 Atul Adya 試著正式定義 isolation level,把本來的四個 isolation level 用更嚴謹的方法重新給出相容的定義,這看起來是作者推薦在一般狀況下的替代方案:

In 1999, Atul Adya built on Berenson et al.’s critique and developed formal and implementation-independent definitions of various transaction isolation levels, including those in ANSI SQL. As he notes[.]

這四個會是 PL-1 對應到 READ UNCOMMITTEDPL-2 對應到 READ COMMITTEDPL-2.99 對應到 REPEATABLE-READ,以及 PL-3 對應到 SERIALIZABILITY;而其中 PL-2.99REPEATABLE-READ 在後面也會重複出現多次。

這次比較意外是在單機上找出問題來,至於 RDS 的部分反倒不是太意外,因為知道 AWS 在底層做了不少 hack,總是會有些 trade off 的?

MongoDB 的欺騙性廣告

Jepsen 最近丟出了一篇新的測試報告在測新版的 MongoDB 4.2.6,而且語氣看起來比以前兇很多,翻了一下前因後果,看起來起因是出自 Twitter 上的這則推,提到了 MongoDB 拿 Jepsen 宣傳的頁面:

然後 Jepsen 的官方帳號這邊也回應,覺得不可置信:

過兩個禮拜後 Jepsen 就丟出由老大 Kyle Kingsbury 發表的「Jepsen: MongoDB 4.2.6」,這篇測試 MongoDB 4.2.6 最新版的測試報告了。

在這篇報告裡面提到了很多不道德的行為,首先是在之前的測試發現有很多會掉資料的問題,但在 MongoDB 官方的宣傳文件「MongoDB and Jepsen」裡面則是完全沒提到,而且還宣稱有業界最強的資料一致性與正確性 (與 Jepsen 報告所提供的資料不符),所以 Jepsen 建議把這些問題列到這個頁面上,以避免使用者受到「誤解」:

Curiously, MongoDB omitted any mention of these findings in their MongoDB and Jepsen page. Instead, that page discusses only passing results, makes no mention of read or write concern, buries the actual report in a footnote, and goes on to claim:

MongoDB offers among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today.

We encourage MongoDB to report Jepsen findings in context: while MongoDB did appear to offer per-document linearizability and causal consistency with the strongest settings, it also failed to offer those properties in most configurations. We think users might want to be aware that their database could lose data by default, but MongoDB’s summary of our work omits any mention of this behavior.

另外當然就是重測 MongoDB 4.2.6 版,沒時間看內容的人可以先瞄一下標題,裡面就已經點出不少東西了:

3 Results
3.1 Sometimes, Programs That Use Transactions… Are Worse
3.2 How ACID is Snapshot Isolation, Anyway
3.3 Indeterminate Errors
3.4 Duplicate Effects
3.5 Read Skew
3.6 Cyclic Information Flow
3.7 Read Your (Future) Writes

不過在最後面的 Discussion 比較清楚。

首先是批評 snapshot isolation 不是 ACID:

MongoDB 4.2.6 claims to offer “full ACID transactions” via snapshot isolation. However, the use of these transactions is complicated by weak defaults, confusing APIs, and undocumented error codes. Snapshot isolation is questionably compatible with the marketing phrase “full ACID”. Even at the highest levels of read and write concern, MongoDB’s transaction mechanism exhibited various anomalies which violate snapshot isolation.

Snapshot isolation is a reasonably strong consistency model, but claiming that snapshot isolation is “full ACID” is questionable.

而且即使把所有的資料安全性相關的設定都調到最高,也根本就做不到宣稱的 snapshot isolation:

Finally, even with the strongest levels of read and write concern for both single-document and transactional operations, we observed cases of G-single (read skew), G1c (cyclic information flow), duplicated writes, and a sort of retrocausal internal consistency anomaly: within a single transaction, reads could observe that transaction’s own writes from the future. MongoDB appears to allow transactions to both observe and not observe prior transactions, and to observe one another’s writes. A single write could be applied multiple times, suggesting an error in MongoDB’s automatic retry mechanism. All of these behaviors are incompatible with MongoDB’s claims of snapshot isolation.

過程中也發現就算設定了 snapshot 層級,MongoDB 在讀取時也不會遵守 snapshot isolation:

MongoDB’s default read and write concern for single-document operations remains local, which can observe uncommitted data, and w: 1, which can lose committed writes. Even when users select safer settings in their clients at the database or collection level, transactions ignore these settings and default again to local and w: 1. The snapshot read concern does not actually guarantee snapshot isolation, and must always be used in conjunction with write concern majority. This holds even for transactions which perform no writes.

然後所有的官方文件都沒有教 snapshot isolation 要怎麼設定,你必須在第三方的文件上才有機會找到:

Nor can users rely on examples to demonstrate snapshot isolated behavior. MongoDB’s transaction documentation and tutorial blog posts show only write-only transactions, using read concern local rather than snapshot. Other examples from MongoDB don’t specify a read concern or run entirely with defaults. Learn MongoDB The Hard Way uses read concern snapshot but write concern local, despite performing writes. Tutorials from DZone, Several Nines, Percona, The Code Barbarian, and Spring.io all claim that transactions are either ACID or offer snapshot isolation, but none set either read or write concern. There are some examples of MongoDB transactions which are snapshot isolated—for instance, from BMC, +N Consulting, and Maciej Zgadzaj, but most uses of MongoDB transactions we found ran—either intentionally or inadvertently—with settings that would (in general) allow write loss and aborted reads.

基本上就是一個老大被惹怒了,丟出來炸,而且看他的語氣還有很多東西沒測,打算要再炸一篇?