Hi Peng,
Racks can be logical (as defined with RAC attribute in Cassandra configuration
files) or physical (racks in server rooms).
In my view, for leveraging racks in your case, its important to understand the
implication of following decisions:
1. Number of distinct logical RACs defined in
Note that if you use more racks than RF you lose some of the operational
benefit. e.g: you'll still only be able to take out one rack at a time
(especially if using vnodes), despite the fact that you have more racks
than RF. As Jeff said this may be desirable, but really it comes down to
what your
On 2017-07-26 19:38 (-0700), "Peng Xiao" <2535...@qq.com> wrote:
> Kurt/All,
>
>
> why the # of racks should be equal to RF?
>
> For example,we have 2 DCs each 6 machines with RF=3,each machine virtualized
> to 8 vms ,
> can we set 6 racs with RF3? I mean one machine one RAC to avoid
Hi Brooke,
Very nice presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrP7G1eeQTI !! Good to
know that you are able to leverage Racks for gainingoperational efficiencies. I
think vnodes have made life easier.
I still see some concerns with Racks:
1. Usually scaling needs are driven by business
自己的邮箱";<2535...@qq.com>;
发送时间: 2017年7月26日(星期三) 晚上7:31
收件人: "user"<user@cassandra.apache.org>;
抄送: "anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in"<anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in>;
主题: 回复： 回复： tolerate how many nodes down in the cluster
One more question.why the # of racks should be eq
星期三) 上午10:32
收件人: "user"<user@cassandra.apache.org>;
抄送: "anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in"<anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in>;
主题: 回复： 回复： tolerate how many nodes down in the cluster
Thanks for the remind,we will setup a new DC as suggested.
-- 原始邮件
nujw_2...@yahoo.co.in>;
主题: Re: 回复： tolerate how many nodes down in the cluster
Keep in mind that you shouldn't just enable multiple racks on an existing
cluster (this will lead to massive inconsistencies). The best method is to
migrate to a new DC as Brooke mentioned.
Keep in mind that you shouldn't just enable multiple racks on an existing
cluster (this will lead to massive inconsistencies). The best method is to
migrate to a new DC as Brooke mentioned.
I've never really understood why Datastax recommends against racks. In
those docs they make it out to be much more difficult than it actually is
to configure and manage racks.
The important thing to keep in mind when using racks is that your # of
racks should be equal to your RF. If you have
Hello Peng.
I think spending the time to set up your nodes into racks is worth it for
the benefits that it brings. With RF3 and NTS you can tolerate the loss of
a whole rack of nodes without losing QUORUM as each rack will contain a
full set of data. It makes ongoing cluster maintenance easier,
Hi Peng,
Three things are important when you are evaluating fault tolerance and
availability for your cluster:
1. RF2. CL3. Topology - how data is replicated in racks.
If you assume that N nodes from ANY rack may fail at the same time, then you
can afford failure of RF-CL nodes and still be
Hi Bhuvan,
From the following link,it doesn't suggest us to use RAC and it looks
reasonable.
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/multi-datacenter-replication
Defining one rack for the entire cluster is the simplest and most common
implementation. Multiple racks should be avoided for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
