[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14043644#comment-14043644
]
Yuki Morishita commented on CASSANDRA-6621:
-------------------------------------------
Streaming protocol version is independent from MessagingService, so the impact
is limited inside streaming.
Though since we currently check if streaming version matches exactly between
nodes, it would be problematic when bootstrapping new node in the middle of
upgrading.
We need to change that check logic to accept lower stream version and make sure
message serializers accept both old and new versions.
With that said, I'm +1 to move this to 2.1 if protocol change is involved.
> STCS fallback is not optimal when bootstrapping
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6621
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6621
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Bartłomiej Romański
> Assignee: Marcus Eriksson
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: compaction, streaming
> Fix For: 2.0.9
>
> Attachments: 0001-wip-keep-sstable-level-when-bootstrapping.patch
>
>
> The initial discussion started in (closed) CASSANDRA-5371. I've rewritten my
> last comment here...
> After streaming (e.g. during boostrap) Cassandra places all sstables at L0.
> At the end of the process we end up with huge number of sstables at the
> lowest level.
> Currently, Cassandra falls back to STCS until the number of sstables at L0
> reaches the reasonable level (32 or something).
> I'm not sure if falling back to STCS is the best way to handle this
> particular situation. I've read the comment in the code and I'm aware why it
> is a good thing to do if we have to many sstables at L0 as a result of too
> many random inserts. We have a lot of sstables, each of them covers the whole
> ring, there's simply no better option.
> However, after the bootstrap situation looks a bit different. The loaded
> sstables already have very small ranges! We just have to tidy up a bit and
> everything should be OK. STCS ignores that completely and after a while we
> have a bit less sstables but each of them covers the whole ring instead of
> just a small part. I believe that in that case letting LCS do the job is a
> better option that allowing STCS mix everything up before.
> Is there a way to disable STCS fallback? I'd like to test that scenario in
> practice during our next bootstrap...
> Does Cassandra really have to put streamed sstables at L0? The only thing we
> have to assure is that sstables at any given level do not overlap. If we
> stream different regions from different nodes how can we get any overlaps?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
