RE: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Joaquin Alzola]

On the cassandra web itself.

http://cassandra.apache.org/download/

From: James Rothering [mailto:jrother...@codojo.me]
Sent: 07 December 2016 00:50
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

Is there an official notification of these EOL dates somewhere?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:38 AM, kurt Greaves 
<k...@instaclustr.com<mailto:k...@instaclustr.com>> wrote:
Latest release in 2.2. 2.1 is borderline EOL and from my experience 2.2 is 
quite stable and has some handy bugfixes that didn't actually make it into 2.1

On 30 November 2016 at 10:41, Shalom Sagges 
<shal...@liveperson.com<mailto:shal...@liveperson.com>> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it is, as 
I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta version for 3.0 
feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the storage modifications 
(please correct me if I'm wrong).

So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to client 
considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm don't require 
any new features available in 2.2).

Thanks!

[https://signature.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/lp_logo.png]

Shalom Sagges

DBA

T: +972-74-700-4035<tel:+972%2074-700-4035>

[https://signature.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/LinkedIn.png]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/164748>

[https://signature.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/Twitter.png]<http://twitter.com/liveperson>

[https://signature.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/Facebook.png]<http://www.facebook.com/LivePersonInc>


We Create Meaningful Connections


[https://signature.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/banners/idc-email-sig.png]<https://engage.liveperson.com/idc-mobile-first-consumer/?utm_medium=email_source=mkto_campaign=idcsig>



This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of the 
addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this message 
or any information herein.
If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender 
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.


This email is confidential and may be subject to privilege. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose its content but contact the 
sender immediately upon receipt.

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[James Rothering]

Is there an official notification of these EOL dates somewhere?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:38 AM, kurt Greaves  wrote:

> Latest release in 2.2. 2.1 is borderline EOL and from my experience 2.2 is
> quite stable and has some handy bugfixes that didn't actually make it into
> 2.1
>
> On 30 November 2016 at 10:41, Shalom Sagges 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>  
>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>
>

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Benjamin Roth]

No worries.
I added some patches to these tickets after having tested them yesterday
with our production cluster.
I think this will be a huge step for MV stability.

Anybody welcome to post comments on them or give me a review:
CASSANDRA-12888, CASSANDRA-12905, CASSANDRA-12984

Thanks folks!

2016-12-01 19:14 GMT+01:00 Kai Wang :

> Ben, I just read through those two tickets. It's scarier than I thought.
> Thank you for all the investigations and comments.
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Benjamin Roth 
> wrote:
>
>> A little experience report on MVs:
>>
>> We use them in production (3.10-trunk) and they work really well on
>> normal read/write operations but streaming operations (bootstrap, repair,
>> rebuild, decommision) can kill your cluster and/or your nerves.
>> We will stay with MVs as we need them and want them.
>> I rolled out a patch on MV streaming on our production cluster a few
>> hours ago as we had problems with bootstrapping new nodes.
>>
>> Before:
>> - Error log was completely flooded with WTEs
>> - Bootstrap either failed due to exceptions or wasn't even close to
>> finish after 24h - it just did not work
>>
>> After
>> - Bootstrap finished without a single error log after less than 5:30h
>>
>> I started to roll out that patch to the whole cluster to see how repairs
>> are affected. Will keep you updated.
>>
>> There is no dedicated JIRA issue assigned as it addresses multiple
>> tickets like CASSANDRA-12905 + CASSANDRA-12888
>>
>>
>> 2016-12-01 16:21 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Haddad :
>>
>>> I agree with everything you just said, Kai.  I'd start a new project
>>> with 3.0.10.  I'd stay away from MVs though.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM Kai Wang  wrote:
>>>
 Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
 without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
 at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc

 We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel
 like spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for
 me, 2.2.x is the choice in production.

 That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
 engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
 experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
 I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
 environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
 performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
 too important to take chances with.


 On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
 wrote:

 Hey Kai,

 Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
 2.2.6 over 3.0?


 Shalom Sagges
 DBA
 T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
 
   We
 Create Meaningful Connections

 


 On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:

 I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
 it over 3.x for production.

 On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges" 
 wrote:

 Hi Everyone,

 I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
 At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable
 it is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
 version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
 storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
 client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
 don't require any new features available in 2.2).

 Thanks!

 Shalom Sagges
 DBA
 T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
 
   We
 Create Meaningful Connections

 


 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
 If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
 the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
 message or any information herein.
 If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
 immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Kai Wang]

Ben, I just read through those two tickets. It's scarier than I thought.
Thank you for all the investigations and comments.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Benjamin Roth 
wrote:

> A little experience report on MVs:
>
> We use them in production (3.10-trunk) and they work really well on normal
> read/write operations but streaming operations (bootstrap, repair, rebuild,
> decommision) can kill your cluster and/or your nerves.
> We will stay with MVs as we need them and want them.
> I rolled out a patch on MV streaming on our production cluster a few hours
> ago as we had problems with bootstrapping new nodes.
>
> Before:
> - Error log was completely flooded with WTEs
> - Bootstrap either failed due to exceptions or wasn't even close to finish
> after 24h - it just did not work
>
> After
> - Bootstrap finished without a single error log after less than 5:30h
>
> I started to roll out that patch to the whole cluster to see how repairs
> are affected. Will keep you updated.
>
> There is no dedicated JIRA issue assigned as it addresses multiple tickets
> like CASSANDRA-12905 + CASSANDRA-12888
>
>
> 2016-12-01 16:21 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Haddad :
>
>> I agree with everything you just said, Kai.  I'd start a new project with
>> 3.0.10.  I'd stay away from MVs though.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM Kai Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
>>> without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
>>> at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc
>>>
>>> We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel
>>> like spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for
>>> me, 2.2.x is the choice in production.
>>>
>>> That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
>>> engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
>>> experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
>>> I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
>>> environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
>>> performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
>>> too important to take chances with.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Kai,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
>>> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>>>
>>>
>>> Shalom Sagges
>>> DBA
>>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>>  
>>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
>>> it over 3.x for production.
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>
>>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Shalom Sagges
>>> DBA
>>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>>  
>>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>>> message or any information herein.
>>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>>> message or any information herein.
>>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Benjamin Roth
> Prokurist
>
> Jaumo GmbH 

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Benjamin Roth]

A little experience report on MVs:

We use them in production (3.10-trunk) and they work really well on normal
read/write operations but streaming operations (bootstrap, repair, rebuild,
decommision) can kill your cluster and/or your nerves.
We will stay with MVs as we need them and want them.
I rolled out a patch on MV streaming on our production cluster a few hours
ago as we had problems with bootstrapping new nodes.

Before:
- Error log was completely flooded with WTEs
- Bootstrap either failed due to exceptions or wasn't even close to finish
after 24h - it just did not work

After
- Bootstrap finished without a single error log after less than 5:30h

I started to roll out that patch to the whole cluster to see how repairs
are affected. Will keep you updated.

There is no dedicated JIRA issue assigned as it addresses multiple tickets
like CASSANDRA-12905 + CASSANDRA-12888


2016-12-01 16:21 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Haddad :

> I agree with everything you just said, Kai.  I'd start a new project with
> 3.0.10.  I'd stay away from MVs though.
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM Kai Wang  wrote:
>
>> Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
>> without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
>> at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc
>>
>> We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel
>> like spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for
>> me, 2.2.x is the choice in production.
>>
>> That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
>> engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
>> experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
>> I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
>> environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
>> performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
>> too important to take chances with.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Kai,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
>> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>>
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>  
>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:
>>
>> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
>> it over 3.x for production.
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>  
>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Benjamin Roth
Prokurist

Jaumo GmbH · www.jaumo.com
Wehrstraße 46 · 73035 Göppingen · Germany
Phone +49 7161 304880-6 · Fax +49 7161 304880-1
AG Ulm · HRB 731058 · Managing Director: Jens Kammerer

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Jonathan Haddad]

I agree with everything you just said, Kai.  I'd start a new project with
3.0.10.  I'd stay away from MVs though.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM Kai Wang  wrote:

> Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
> without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
> at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc
>
> We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel like
> spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for me,
> 2.2.x is the choice in production.
>
> That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
> engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
> experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
> I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
> environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
> performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
> too important to take chances with.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
> wrote:
>
> Hey Kai,
>
> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>
>
> Shalom Sagges
> DBA
> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>  
>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:
>
> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick it
> over 3.x for production.
>
> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Shalom Sagges
> DBA
> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>  
>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>
> 
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
> message or any information herein.
> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
> message or any information herein.
> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>
>
>

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Shalom Sagges]

Thanks a lot Kai!


Shalom Sagges
DBA
T: +972-74-700-4035
 
 We Create Meaningful Connections



On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:

> Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
> without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
> at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc
>
> We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel like
> spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for me,
> 2.2.x is the choice in production.
>
> That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
> engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
> experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
> I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
> environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
> performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
> too important to take chances with.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Kai,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
>> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>>
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>  
>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
>>> it over 3.x for production.
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Everyone,

 I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
 At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable
 it is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
 version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
 storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
 client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
 don't require any new features available in 2.2).

 Thanks!

 Shalom Sagges
 DBA
 T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
 
   We
 Create Meaningful Connections

 


 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
 If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
 the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
 message or any information herein.
 If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
 immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.

>>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>
>

-- 
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of the 
addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this 
message or any information herein. 
If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender 
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Kai Wang]

Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by without
people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks at
instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc

We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel like
spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for me,
2.2.x is the choice in production.

That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
too important to take chances with.


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges 
wrote:

> Hey Kai,
>
> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>
>
> Shalom Sagges
> DBA
> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>  
>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:
>
>> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
>> it over 3.x for production.
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>
>>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Shalom Sagges
>>> DBA
>>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>>  
>>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>>> message or any information herein.
>>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>>
>>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
> message or any information herein.
> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Shalom Sagges]

Hey Kai,

Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
2.2.6 over 3.0?


Shalom Sagges
DBA
T: +972-74-700-4035
 
 We Create Meaningful Connections



On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang  wrote:

> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick it
> over 3.x for production.
>
> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>>  
>>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>

-- 
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of the 
addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this 
message or any information herein. 
If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender 
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Kai Wang]

I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick it
over 3.x for production.

On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges"  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Shalom Sagges
> DBA
> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>  
>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>
> 
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
> message or any information herein.
> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Vladimir Yudovin]

You should also consider end of support term, as Cassandra page says:



Apache Cassandra 2.2 is supported until November 2016.

Apache Cassandra 2.1 is supported until November 2016 with critical fixes only



So 2.1 actually don't get any fixes, even critical.



Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin, 

Winguzone - Cloud Cassandra Hosting






 On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:38:46 -0500 kurt Greaves 
k...@instaclustr.com wrote 




Latest release in 2.2. 2.1 is borderline EOL and from my experience 2.2 is 
quite stable and has some handy bugfixes that didn't actually make it into 2.1



On 30 November 2016 at 10:41, Shalom Sagges shal...@liveperson.com 
wrote:

Hi Everyone, 



I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version. 

At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it is, as 
I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta version for 3.0 
feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the storage modifications 
(please correct me if I'm wrong). 



So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to client 
considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm don't require 
any new features available in 2.2). 



Thanks!




 
Shalom Sagges
 
DBA
 
T: +972-74-700-4035
 

 
 
 
 We Create Meaningful Connections
 
 

 











This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 

If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of the 
addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this message 
or any information herein. 

If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender 
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.

Re: Cassandra 2.x Stability

[kurt Greaves]

Latest release in 2.2. 2.1 is borderline EOL and from my experience 2.2 is
quite stable and has some handy bugfixes that didn't actually make it into
2.1

On 30 November 2016 at 10:41, Shalom Sagges  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Shalom Sagges
> DBA
> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>  
>  We Create Meaningful Connections
>
> 
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
> message or any information herein.
> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>

Cassandra 2.x Stability

[Shalom Sagges]

Hi Everyone,

I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
don't require any new features available in 2.2).

Thanks!

Shalom Sagges
DBA
T: +972-74-700-4035
 
 We Create Meaningful Connections


-- 
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of the 
addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this 
message or any information herein. 
If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender 
immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.