Re: Degradation of availability when using NTS and RF > number of racks

2023-03-06 Thread Paulo Motta
It's a bit unfortunate that NTS does not maintain the ability to lose a rack without loss of quorum for RF > #racks > 2, since this can be easily achieved by evenly placing replicas across all racks. Since RackAwareTopologyStrategy is a superset of NetworkTopologyStrategy, can't we just use the

Re: Degradation of availability when using NTS and RF > number of racks

2023-03-06 Thread Jeff Jirsa
A huge number of people use this legal and unsafe combination - like anyone running RF=3 in AWS us-west-1 (or any other region with only 2 accessible AZs), and no patch is going to suddenly make that safe, and banning it hurts users a lot. If we're really going to ship a less-bad version of this,

Re: Degradation of availability when using NTS and RF > number of racks

2023-03-06 Thread Derek Chen-Becker
1) It does seem a like a big footgun. I think it violates the principle of least surprise if someone has configured NTS thinking that they are improving availability 2) I don't know that we want to ban it outright, since maybe there's a case for someone to be using a different CL that would be OK

Re: Degradation of availability when using NTS and RF > number of racks

2023-03-06 Thread C. Scott Andreas
Modifying NTS in place would not be possible if it changes rack placement in a way that breaks existing clusters on upgrade. A strategy introducing a change to placement like this would need a new name. A new strategy would be fine in trunk. Logging a warning seems appropriate if RF > rack

Re: [DISCUSS] Should separate snapshots with the same name be allowed in different tables?

2023-03-06 Thread Brandon Williams
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 11:00 PM Paulo Motta wrote: > I found this a bit surprising, since I would expect a snapshot with the same > name on different tables to represent the same logical snapshot taken at the > same point-in-time. I would expect this too, 100%. > This affects the design of

Degradation of availability when using NTS and RF > number of racks

2023-03-06 Thread Miklosovic, Stefan
Hi all, some time ago we identified an issue with NetworkTopologyStrategy. The problem is that when RF > number of racks, it may happen that NTS places replicas in such a way that when whole rack is lost, we lose QUORUM and data are not available anymore if QUORUM CL is used. To illustrate

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Next release date

2023-03-06 Thread Benjamin Lerer
Sorry, I realized that when I started the discussion I probably did not frame it enough as I see that it is now going into different directions. The concerns I am seeing are: 1) A too small amount of time between releases is inefficient from a development perspective and from a user perspective.

Re: Downgradability

2023-03-06 Thread Jacek Lewandowski
A bit of organization - I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18300 epic to track tickets related to the downgradability. Please add the tickets you are aware of. thanks - - -- --- - - Jacek Lewandowski czw., 23 lut 2023 o 17:47 Benedict