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
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.
