On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like the consensus is that if this is a good idea at all, it
needs to be opt-in. Like I said earlier, I can live with that.
In addition, if you want to get data from large companies that manage
their own
It'd be great if we had different settings for inter- and intra-DC read repair.
-ryan
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Jake Luciani jak...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it's read repair you can lower the read repair chance to tune this.
On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Aaron Griffith
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jeremy Hanna
jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see a way in DatabaseDescriptor to set the rpc_timeout_in_ms via jmx.
It doesn't seem possible right now.
Is there any reason why that couldn't be set via jmx? It seems like a
rolling restart to update
I think maybe 4 months was too short? Do we optimistically want to try
that again or plan on taking a bit more time?
Either way I'm happy to have a plan. :)
-ryan
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
I'll open a ticket on this soon, but I'd like to start a discussion first.
We're working on a distributed tracing system, whose design is
somewhat inspired by the Google Dapper paper [1]. We have instrumented
a bunch of our internal services through our custom networking stack
[2].
In a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds a lot like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1123. The main change
you'd want is to allow passing an external trace ID.
Yeah, that patch seems like a good start. In addition to passing an
external
This is awesome. I'll work to get it merged.
-ryan
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Robert Jackson
robe...@promedicalinc.com wrote:
I have just finished these updates. The following changes/new features have
been made:
* Update Rakefile to install 0.6.13, 0.7.4, 0.8.0-beta1 to
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek gdusba...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
going into our maintenance releases for a while now. I thought it
would stop after we committed ourselves to having a more predictable
major release
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joshua Partogi joshua.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Does the Ruby library currently returns the RowKey during a row get?
From what I am seeing it seems like it is only returning an
OrderedHash of the columns. Would it be possible to return the RowKey,
or it
If you're using 0.7, I'd skip jmx and use the mx4j http interface then
write scripts that convert the data to the format you need.
-ryan
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Roland Gude roland.g...@yoochoose.com wrote:
Unfortunately not, as the nagios JMX check expects a numeric return value and
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 10:29 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote:
The discussion seems to be petering out and I wonder if that means folks
are still trying
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
...
In other words, at some point you have so many production users that
it's silly to pretend it's ready for 1.0. I'd say we've passed that
point.
Did you mean to say silly to pretend it's *not* ready for 1.0?
I'm a -1 on naming the next release 1.0 because I don't think it has
the quality that 1.0 implies, but to be honest I don't really care
that much. The version numbers don't really effect those that of use
that are running production clusters. Calling it 1.0 won't make it any
more stable or faster.
I think many believe that shipping 0.7 took longer than it should.
Rather than going into why that happened, I'd like to propose a better
way to move forward that will hopefully allow us to ship on a more
predictable schedule. This proposal is heavily influenced by the
google chrome release
implemented #1072 twice for 0.6 and 0.7)
4, back porting features is risky and causes bugs, esp with the
limited QA available
-ryan
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ryan King r...@twitter.com wrote:
I think many believe that shipping 0.7 took longer than it should.
Rather than going into why
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ryan King r...@twitter.com wrote:
# Fixed schedule
We should set a fixed schedule and stick to it. Anything features not
ready at branch time won't make it and will be disabled
+1 non-binding
-ryan
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for reals
On Jan 6, 2011 11:14 AM, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote:
RC 4 seems to be holding up OK, shall we? I propose the following for
release as 0.7.0 (aka For Reals Yo).
SVN:
I'd be happy to host a hackathon at Twitter HQ in SF for this. Anyone
interested in that?
-ryan
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Jeremy Hanna jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the time could be better spent trying to beef up the integration
tests and looking for ways to root out
In the spirit of making sure we have clear communication about our
work, I'd like to outline the use cases Twitter has for distributed
counters. I expect that many of you using Cassandra currently or in
the future will have similar use cases.
The first use case is pretty simple: high scale
Sorry, been catching up on this.
From Twitter's perspective, 1546 is probably insufficient because it
doesn't allow one to do time-series data without supercolumns (which
might work ok, but require a good deal of work). Additionally, one of
our deployed systems already does supercolumns of
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Maifi Khan maifi.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
How is the locking implemented in cassandra? Say, I have 10 nodes and
I want to write to 6 nodes which is (n+1)/2.
Not to be too pedantic, but you're misunderstanding how to use
cassandra. When we talk about 'n' we mean
21 matches
Mail list logo
