[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11451?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Marcus Eriksson updated CASSANDRA-11451:
----------------------------------------
Description:
Since CASSANDRA-10422 we don't do anticompaction when a user issues a sub range
repair (-st X -et Y), but we still mark sstables as repairing.
We should avoid marking them as users might want to run many sub range repair
sessions in parallel.
The reason we mark sstables is that we don't want another repair session to
steal the sstables before we do anticompaction, and since we do no
anticompaction with sub range repair we have no benefit from the marking.
was:
Since CASSANDRA-10422 we don't do anticompaction when a user issues a sub range
repair (-st X -et Y), but we still mark sstables as repairing.
We should avoid marking them as users might want to run many sub range repair
sessions in parallel.
The reason we mark sstables is that we need don't want another repair session
to steal the sstables before we do anticompaction, and since we do no
anticompaction with sub range repair we have no benefit from the marking.
> Don't mark sstables as repairing when doing sub range repair
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-11451
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11451
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Marcus Eriksson
> Fix For: 2.2.x, 3.0.x, 3.x
>
>
> Since CASSANDRA-10422 we don't do anticompaction when a user issues a sub
> range repair (-st X -et Y), but we still mark sstables as repairing.
> We should avoid marking them as users might want to run many sub range repair
> sessions in parallel.
> The reason we mark sstables is that we don't want another repair session to
> steal the sstables before we do anticompaction, and since we do no
> anticompaction with sub range repair we have no benefit from the marking.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
