Re: Gossip 2.0

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > have opened up CASSANDRA-12345... Nice; What did you do, camp on the "create" button until after 12344 was submitted? :) -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com

Re: Gossip 2.0

He denied it when I asked him that earlier. But we know he did. http://wilderness.apache.org/channels/?f=cassandra-dev/2016-09-01#1472732219 > On Sep 1, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Eric Evans

Gossip 2.0

Hi all, One of the problems I been thinking about for quite a while is how to improve the efficacy of cassandra's gossip, especially when dealing with large clusters (greater than 1,000 nodes). By reducing gossip overhead we can implement new features that require data to be disseminated

Gossip Behavioral Difference between C* 2.0 and C* 2.1

Hi, We recently discovered that there are some differences in gossip behavior between C* 2.0 and C* 2.1. In some cases of network instability or a node reboot, we can observe some behavioral differences from Cassandra/system.log. 2.0.17 We can observe this log of similar pattern in log : DEBUG

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

[mailto:arodr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:01 PM To: u...@cassandra.apache.org Cc: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot Hi Michaels :-), My guess is this ticket will be closed with a "Won't Fix"

Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

Hi Michaels :-), My guess is this ticket will be closed with a "Won't Fix" resolution. Cassandra 2.0 is no longer supported and I have seen tickets being rejected like CASSANDRA-10510 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10510> . Would you like to upgrade to 2.1.las

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

...@internalcircle.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:57 AM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Cc: u...@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot I'd recommend you create a JIRA! That way you can get some traction on the issue. Obviously

Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

> > Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > > > Michael Fong > > From: Michael Fong [mailto:michael.f...@ruckuswireless.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:41 PM > To: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during boo

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

o: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap Hi, all, Here is some more information on before the OOM happened on the rebooted node in a 2-node test cluster: 1. It seems the schema version has changed on the rebooted node after reboot, i.e. Be

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap

: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:43 AM To: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap Hi, all, We have recently encountered a Cassandra OOM issue when Cassandra is brought up sometimes (but not always) in our 4-node cluster test bed. After

Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap

Hi, all, We have recently encountered a Cassandra OOM issue when Cassandra is brought up sometimes (but not always) in our 4-node cluster test bed. After analyzing the heap dump, we could find the Internal-Response thread pool (JMXEnabledThreadPoolExecutor) is filled with thounds of

Modeling nested collection with C* 2.0

​Hi, I need your help for modeling a nested collection with cassanrda2.0 (UDT no, no fozen) My users table contains emails by type, each type of email contains multiple emails. Example: Type: pro. emails: {a...@mail.com, b...@mail.com ...} Type: private. emails: {c...@mail.com, d...@mail.com}

Re: Modeling nested collection with C* 2.0

Ahmed, Just using text and serializing as Json is the easy way and a common approach. However, this list is for Cassandra commiter discussion, please be so kind as to use the regular user list for data modeling questions or for any future responses to this email thread. Regards, Ryan Svihla

Committing to 2.0 and merging up without touching 2.1.0

Committers, Since we've had the 2.1.0 branch around a bit longer than we normally would this time around, we're starting to run into situations where we want to commit something to 2.0 and 2.1, but skip 2.1.0. Here's the process to correctly do that: First, commit to 2.0 (obviously). Next

Re: Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

Clint, I'm hoping that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201 will make it into Cassandra 2.0, as it is a general purpose solution that will work for both mapred, and mapreduce based code. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Clint Kelly clint.ke...@gmail.com wrote: One other question

Re: Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

the CqlPagingRecordReader code. Best regards, Clint On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Clint Kelly clint.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, Has anyone out there used Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x? I saw this discussion on the Cassandra JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201

Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

Folks, Has anyone out there used Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x? I saw this discussion on the Cassandra JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201 but the fix (https://github.com/michaelsembwever/cassandra-hadoop) referenced in the thread is for Cassandra 1.2. I put

Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

Hi All, Can anyone tell me about the new features that are going to come in Cassandra 2.0 ? Thank you Emalayan

Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

that are going to come in Cassandra 2.0 ? Thank you Emalayan

Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

Great. Thank you Tomaz. From: Tomaz Muraus to...@apache.org To: dev@cassandra.apache.org; Emalayan Vairavanathan svemala...@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ? Check CHANGES file (https://github.com

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 - Aaron Morton Freelance Cassandra Developer New Zealand @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 7/02/2013, at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 Regards, /VJ On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which will be moot if LZ4 becomes our default, as looks likely). Upgrading to Java7 lets

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

, Gary Dusbabekgdusba...@gmail.com wrote: +1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellisjbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

Counter proposal java 8 and closures. Jk On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Carl Yeksigian c...@yeksigian.com wrote: +1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- Pavel Yaskevich On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- AY On Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 01:24 AM, Pavel Yaskevich wrote: +1 -- Pavel Yaskevich On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

on the Users list. I love the idea of requiring Java 7 explicitly + clarifying the project's stance on the JVM requirement overall. Might also want to lock it down to something like Java 7 u8 (u13 might be even nicer given 2.0's timeframe) given the early instability in Java7's early releases (and I

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which will be moot if LZ4

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Williams dri...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which will be moot

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Gary Dusbabek gdusba...@gmail.com wrote: +1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- Sylvain On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which

Re: 2.0

here on the dev list, it certainly seems like 2.0 is premature for a full-on switch over, and Ed raised some interesting metrics to consider when we could declare the CQL protocol as 'accepted'. I'm curious as to how you are seeing it roll out. Thanks for your time, -Jason On Fri, Nov 30

Re: 2.0

a new client interface/protocol if we went planning, at some point, on retiring the old one. And, also, I missed the Avro debate from the past, so I'm not sure how much that affects current and future thinking. After raising the issue here on the dev list, it certainly seems like 2.0 is premature

Re: 2.0

momentum and have rock solid clients for 5 languages and have higher level tools written on top of it then its easy to say thrift is not needed anymore. On Saturday, December 1, 2012, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: I agree on 2.0. For the thrift part, we've said clearly that we wouldn't remove it any

Re: 2.0

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.com wrote: I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing thrift. I'm -1 on removing thrift, and by my count, that would put us at -3 binding if it ever came to vote, so let's consider this proposition

Re: 2.0

I agree on 2.0. For the thrift part, we've said clearly that we wouldn't remove it any time soon so let's stick to that. Besides, I would agree it's too soon anyway. What we can do however in the relatively short term on that front, is to pull thrift in it's own jar (we've almost removed all

Re: 2.0

Hi Jonathan, I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump

Re: 2.0

in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump to '2.0', along

Re: 2.0

, I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump to '2.0

Re: 2.0

My hope is that after 1.2 (i.e. by the time we're 2.0'ing), the binary CQL protocol is out of beta :). On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.comwrote: Good idea. Lets remove thrift, CQL3 is still beta, but I am willing to upgrade to a version that removes thrift

Re: 2.0

+1 Regards, /VJ On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think we should call 1.2-next, 2.0. I'd like to spend some time paying off our technical debt: - replace supercolumns with composites (CASSANDRA-3237

Re: 2.0

is virtually everyone) on 1.2. On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jason Brown jasedbr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode

Re: 2.0

if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump to '2.0', along with the other initiatives, would be a reasonable time/milestone to do so