I think a take away here is that we can't assume a level of operation maturity will coincide automatically with scale. To make our core features robust, we have to account for less-experienced users.
A lot of folks on this thread have *really* strong ops and OpsViz stories. Let's not forget that most of our users don't. ((Un)fortunately, as a consulting firm, we tend to see the worst of this). On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > Off the top of my head I can remember clusters with 600 or 700 nodes with > 256 tokens. > > Not the best situation, but it’s real. 256 has been the default for better > or worse. > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:41 PM Joseph Lynch <joe.e.ly...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > We see this in larger clusters regularly. Usually folks have just >> > 'grown into it' because it was the default. >> > >> >> I could understand a few dozen nodes with 256 vnodes, but hundreds is >> surprising. I have a whitepaper draft lying around showing how vnodes >> decrease availability in large clusters by orders of magnitude, I'll polish >> it up and send it out to the list when I get a second. >> >> In the meantime, sorry for de-railing a conversation about repair >> scheduling to talk about vnodes, let's chat about that in a different >> thread :-) >> >> -Joey >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
