How are you doing the write? CQL or Thrift? In thrift, the client specifies the timestamp, and you should always be seeing that as the timestamp. In CQL, the CQL layer on the server adds the timestamp. I am less familiar with the CQL code, maybe something screwy is going on there. 1.1.6 is out, do you see the same behavior there?
-Jeremiah On Oct 24, 2012, at 3:57 PM, William Katsak <wkat...@cs.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Here is what I am seeing on each replica node. This is after a write with > consistencylevel=ALL. > > DEBUG [MutationStage:48] 2012-10-24 16:56:01,050 RowMutationVerbHandler.java > (line 56) RowMutation(keyspace='normal', key='746573746b65793337', > modifications=[ColumnFamily(data [636f6c:false:3@1351112161048000,])]) > applied. Sending response to 770151@/172.16.18.112 > > DEBUG [MutationStage:59] 2012-10-24 16:56:02,889 RowMutationVerbHandler.java > (line 56) RowMutation(keyspace='normal', key='746573746b65793337', > modifications=[ColumnFamily(data [636f6c:false:3@1351112162785000,])]) > applied. Sending response to 770152@/172.16.18.112 > > DEBUG [MutationStage:46] 2012-10-24 16:55:59,129 RowMutationVerbHandler.java > (line 56) RowMutation(keyspace='normal', key='746573746b65793337', > modifications=[ColumnFamily(data [636f6c:false:3@1351112159127000,])]) > applied. Sending response to 770153@/172.16.18.112 > > Now, if I do a read of this data, I will always see a digest failure the > first time. > > Thanks, > Bill > > > On 10/24/2012 04:09 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> Timestamps are part of the ColumnFamily objects and their Columns, >> contained in the RowMutation. >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:57 PM, William Katsak<wkat...@cs.rutgers.edu> >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I sent this message a few days ago, but it seems to have gotten lost (I >>> don't see it on the archive), so I am trying again. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> I am using Cassandra for some academic-type work that involves some hacking >>> of replica placement, etc. and I am observing a strange behavior (well, >>> strange to me). >>> >>> Using the stock 1.1.5 snapshot, when you do a write (even with >>> consistencylevel = ALL), it seems that all nodes will get the data with a >>> slightly different timestamp, and any read (even at ALL) with always have a >>> digest failure on the first read (and subsequent reads until read repair >>> catches up). >>> >>> It would make sense to me that timestamps should be distributed with the >>> RowMutation, not set on each node independently. >>> >>> Is this the intended behavior? Is there a design reason for this that I >>> should be aware of? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bill Katsak >> >>
