I agree. I've updated the patch in 14557 to include a note about
application to system keyspaces in cassandra.yaml.

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:59 AM Oleksandr Petrov <oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think it is reasonable that system keyspaces would get initialized with a
> default replication factor, assuming ones that were already
> initalized would remain intact (however, this should be the same for
> user-created keyspaces).
>
> Assuming it doesn't change the current behaviour, and default and min rf,
> when unset, act the same way current version would, the only thing we
> should probably add is a line in cassandra.conf that default and min
> replication factors will also apply to system keyspaces.
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:01 PM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Based on Alex's suggestion on the ticket, wanted to reach out to clarify
> on
> > the current scope of  default and minimum replication factors that 14557
> > defines, and gather thoughts to farm for dissent.
> >
> > Both the configurations (default and minimum) apply not just to user
> > keyspaces, but also to system keyspaces. For instance, this can be handy
> in
> > deployments that use authenticated C* clusters where operators have to
> > "remember" to set system_auth keyspace's RF to a value higher than 1. In
> > such cases, setting default_rf = 3 for example (which I suppose is common
> > in most deployments) would ensure all the system keyspaces (including
> > system_auth) come up with RF=3.
> >
> > It can be helpful to note that, this patch by default does not cause any
> > change to the replication factors, reason being, the default values of
> > these configurations are set to [defaultRF=1, minimumRF=0] to not induce
> > any changes that folks may not expect, but rather offers knobs to define
> > what a sane default RF should be, and have a gate on any new keyspaces
> > being created with an RF lower than minimumRF.
> >
> > Curious to know your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sumanth
> >
>
>
> --
> alex p
>

Reply via email to