Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released

[Janne Jalkanen]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these are 
bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?

If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?  Will 3.0 
gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug fix release 
on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as even-numbered releases 
will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1 essentially the same thing? 
Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 
3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something + patches = 3.what?

What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal 
conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why are 
the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1 > 0)? 

/Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the target of 
some hideous joke.

> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani  wrote:
> 
> 
> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release 
> process[4]. 
> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
> 
> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
> performance.
> 
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/ 
> 
> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
> section:
> 
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ 
> 
> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please pay
> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to encounter
> any problem.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd  (CHANGES.txt)
> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs  (NEWS.txt)
> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA 
> 
> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/ 
> 
> 

Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released

[Kai Wang]

Janne,

You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions ..."
statement. I can really use some examples such as:
3.0.0 = ?
3.0.1 = ?
3.1.0 = ?
3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix
should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen 
wrote:

>
> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these
> are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
>
> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?
> Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug
> fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as
> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1
> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more
> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something
> + patches = 3.what?
>
> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal
> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why
> are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1
> > 0)?
>
> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the
> target of some hideous joke.
>
> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani  wrote:
>
>
> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release
> process[4].
> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>
> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
> performance.
>
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/
>
> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
> section:
>
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>
> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please
> pay
> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to
> encounter
> any problem.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt)
> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt)
> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA
> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
>
>
>

Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released

[Hannu Kröger]

Hi,

I feel the same as well. Would you skip 3.2 when you release another round of 
bug fixes after one round of bug fixes? Or would 3.2 be released after 3.3.? :P

BR,
Hannu

> On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:05, Kai Wang  wrote:
> 
> Janne,
> 
> You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions ..." 
> statement. I can really use some examples such as: 
> 3.0.0 = ?
> 3.0.1 = ?
> 3.1.0 = ?
> 3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix 
> should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)
> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen  > wrote:
> 
> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these 
> are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
> 
> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?  Will 
> 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug fix 
> release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as 
> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1 
> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more 
> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something + 
> patches = 3.what?
> 
> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal 
> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why are 
> the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1 > 0)? 
> 
> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the target 
> of some hideous joke.
> 
>> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
>> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release 
>> process[4]. 
>> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>> 
>> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
>> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
>> performance.
>> 
>>  http://cassandra.apache.org/ 
>> 
>> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
>> section:
>> 
>>  http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ 
>> 
>> 
>> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please pay
>> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to encounter
>> any problem.
>> 
>> Enjoy!
>> 
>> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd  (CHANGES.txt)
>> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs  (NEWS.txt)
>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA 
>> 
>> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/ 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Switching to Vnodes

[Jeff Jirsa]

Streaming with vnodes is not always pleasant – rebuild uses streaming (as does 
bootstrap, repair, and decommission). The rebuild delay you see may or may not 
be related to that. It could also be that the streams timed out, and you don’t 
have a stream timeout set. Are you seeing data move? Are the new nodes busy 
compacting? Secondary indexes themselves may not cause problems, but there are 
cases where very large indexes (due to very large partitions or unusual 
cardinalities) may case problems.

The other way is to backup your data, make a new vnode cluster, and load your 
data in with sstableloader
Known issues are that streaming with vnodes creates a lot of small tables and 
does a lot more work than streaming without vnodes
Not necessarily
See #2
From:  cass savy
Reply-To:  "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Date:  Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM
To:  "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Subject:  Switching to Vnodes

We want to move our clusters to use Vnodes. I know the docs online say we have 
to create new DC with vnodes and move to new dC and decommission old one. We 
use DSE for our c* clusters.C* version is 2.0.14 

1. Is there any other way to migrate existing nodes to vnodes?
2. What are the known issues with that approach?
3. We have few secondary indexes in the keyspace, will that cause any issues 
with moving to vnodes?

4. What are the issues encountered after moving to vnodes in PROD
5. anybody recommend Vnodes for Spark nodes.

Approach : Moving to new DC with vnodes enabled:
When I tested it for  a  keyspace which has secondary indexes, rebuilds on 
Vnode enabled Datacenter takes days and don't know when it completes or even if 
it will complete. I tried with 256,32,64 tokens per node but no luck. 

Please advise.

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Switching to Vnodes

[cass savy]

We want to move our clusters to use Vnodes. I know the docs online say we
have to create new DC with vnodes and move to new dC and decommission old
one. We use DSE for our c* clusters.C* version is 2.0.14

1. Is there any other way to migrate existing nodes to vnodes?
2. What are the known issues with that approach?
3. We have few secondary indexes in the keyspace, will that cause any
issues with moving to vnodes?

4. What are the issues encountered after moving to vnodes in PROD
5. anybody recommend Vnodes for Spark nodes.

*Approach : Moving to new DC with vnodes enabled*:
When I tested it for  a  keyspace which has secondary indexes, rebuilds on
Vnode enabled Datacenter takes days and don't know when it completes or
even if it will complete. I tried with 256,32,64 tokens per node but no
luck.

Please advise.

Re: Switching to Vnodes

[cass savy]

Victor,
We have 21 nodes in 3 DC, spark DC has 3 nodes. Primary datacenter nodes
has 300gb of data.

What the num_tokens you have in prod cluster? are u using default 256?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Victor Chen  wrote:

> I have a 12 node cluster in prod using vnodes and C* version 2.18. I have
> never used rebuild, and instead prefer bootstrapping new nodes, even if it
> means there is additional shuffling of data and cleanup needed on the
> initial nodes in each DC, mostly b/c you can tell when bootstrapping is
> finished. w/ rebuild, like you have observed, there's really no way to be
> sure, apart from comparing load. I have no experience with vnodes and spark
> though, so I can't really comment on that. We are using secondary indexes
> though, and aren't seeing many issues. How much data do you have per node
> and in total and how many nodes?
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:26 PM, cass savy  wrote:
>
>> We want to move our clusters to use Vnodes. I know the docs online say we
>> have to create new DC with vnodes and move to new dC and decommission old
>> one. We use DSE for our c* clusters.C* version is 2.0.14
>>
>> 1. Is there any other way to migrate existing nodes to vnodes?
>> 2. What are the known issues with that approach?
>> 3. We have few secondary indexes in the keyspace, will that cause any
>> issues with moving to vnodes?
>>
>> 4. What are the issues encountered after moving to vnodes in PROD
>> 5. anybody recommend Vnodes for Spark nodes.
>>
>> *Approach : Moving to new DC with vnodes enabled*:
>> When I tested it for  a  keyspace which has secondary indexes, rebuilds
>> on Vnode enabled Datacenter takes days and don't know when it completes or
>> even if it will complete. I tried with 256,32,64 tokens per node but no
>> luck.
>>
>> Please advise.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Unable to start one Cassandra node: OutOfMemoryError

[Mikhail Strebkov]

Hi everyone,

While upgrading our 5 machines cluster from DSE version 4.7.1 (Cassandra
2.1.8) to DSE version: 4.8.2 (Cassandra 2.1.11)  one of the nodes can't
start with OutOfMemoryError.

We're using HotSpot 64-Bit Server VM/1.8.0_45 and G1 garbage collector with
8 GiB heap.

Average node size is 300 GiB.

I looked at the heap dump with YourKit profiler (www.yourkit.com) and it
was quite hard since it's so big, but can't get much out of it:
http://i.imgur.com/fIRImma.png

As far as I understand the report, there are 1,332,812 instances of
org.apache.cassandra.db.Row which retain 8 GiB. I don't understand why all
of them are still strongly reachable?

Please help me to debug this. I don't know even where to start.
I feel very uncomfortable with 1 node running 4.8.2, 1 node down and 3
nodes running 4.7.1 at the same time.

Thanks,
Mikhail

Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released

[Maciek Sakrejda]

I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading the
linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but I'm
having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.

> The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
features.

Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well? Is 3.x.y just
3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0, unless there's a
really serious issue that needs fixing?

Re: Unable to start one Cassandra node: OutOfMemoryError

[Jeff Jirsa]

8G is probably too small for a G1 heap. Raise your heap or try CMS instead.

71% of your heap is collections – may be a weird data model quirk, but try CMS 
first and see if that behaves better.



From:  Mikhail Strebkov
Reply-To:  "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Date:  Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 5:26 PM
To:  "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Subject:  Unable to start one Cassandra node: OutOfMemoryError

Hi everyone,

While upgrading our 5 machines cluster from DSE version 4.7.1 (Cassandra 2.1.8) 
to DSE version: 4.8.2 (Cassandra 2.1.11)  one of the nodes can't start with 
OutOfMemoryError.

We're using HotSpot 64-Bit Server VM/1.8.0_45 and G1 garbage collector with 8 
GiB heap.

Average node size is 300 GiB.

I looked at the heap dump with YourKit profiler (www.yourkit.com) and it was 
quite hard since it's so big, but can't get much out of it: 
http://i.imgur.com/fIRImma.png

As far as I understand the report, there are 1,332,812 instances of 
org.apache.cassandra.db.Row which retain 8 GiB. I don't understand why all of 
them are still strongly reachable?

Please help me to debug this. I don't know even where to start.
I feel very uncomfortable with 1 node running 4.8.2, 1 node down and 3 nodes 
running 4.7.1 at the same time.

Thanks,
Mikhail





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released

[Tyler Hobbs]

This explains the new release plans in detail:
http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/

3.0.1 and 3.1 are a special case, because they happen to be identical.
However, 3.0.2 will not be the same as 3.2.  The 3.0.2 will only contain
bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new features.  There will not be a 3.1.1
or 3.2.1 unless a very critical bug is discovered in 3.1 or 3.2.

If you "just want to run the most stable 3.0", stick with 3.0.x for now
(which is 3.0.1).  If you want to use bleeding-edge features, try out 3.2
when it's released (but be warned that it may not be as stable).

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Hannu Kröger  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I feel the same as well. Would you skip 3.2 when you release another round
> of bug fixes after one round of bug fixes? Or would 3.2 be released after
> 3.3.? :P
>
> BR,
> Hannu
>
> On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:05, Kai Wang  wrote:
>
> Janne,
>
> You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions
> ..." statement. I can really use some examples such as:
> 3.0.0 = ?
> 3.0.1 = ?
> 3.1.0 = ?
> 3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix
> should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of
>> these are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
>>
>> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?
>> Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug
>> fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as
>> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1
>> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more
>> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something
>> + patches = 3.what?
>>
>> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal
>> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why
>> are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1
>> > 0)?
>>
>> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the
>> target of some hideous joke.
>>
>> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
>> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release
>> process[4].
>> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>>
>> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
>> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
>> performance.
>>
>>  http://cassandra.apache.org/
>>
>> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
>> section:
>>
>>  http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>>
>> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please
>> pay
>> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to
>> encounter
>> any problem.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt)
>> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt)
>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA
>> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Tyler Hobbs
DataStax