Re: [VOTE PASSED] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.15

2017-10-09 Thread Michael Shuler
With 8 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no other votes, the 3.0.15 vote has passed. I'll get the artifacts published soon. -- Kind regards, Michael On 10/02/2017 12:18 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.15. > > sha1:

Re: What would be the appropriate number of vnodes (num_tokens) to use?

2017-10-09 Thread Jeff Jirsa
As long as balanced is achieved, fewer vnodes the better -- Jeff Jirsa > On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Li, Guangxing wrote: > > Jeff, > > so the key really is to keep nodes load balanced, and as long as that such > balance is achieved, using a smaller amount of

Re: [VOTE PASSED] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

2017-10-09 Thread Michael Shuler
On 10/09/2017 10:15 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I count 7 binding +1 votes and no other votes for the 3.11.1 release. > Thanks for all the feedback. I will publish the release artifacts shortly. > Resend with subject updated to [VOTE PASSED] :) -- Michael

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

2017-10-09 Thread Michael Shuler
I count 7 binding +1 votes and no other votes for the 3.11.1 release. Thanks for all the feedback. I will publish the release artifacts shortly. -- Kind regards, Michael On 10/02/2017 12:58 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.1. > > sha1:

Re: What would be the appropriate number of vnodes (num_tokens) to use?

2017-10-09 Thread Jeff Jirsa
256 was chosen because the original vnode allocation algorithm was random and fewer than 256 could lead to unbalanced nodes In 3.0 there’s a less naive algorithm to ensure more balanced distribution, and there 16 or 32 is probably preferable -- Jeff Jirsa > On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Li,

Re: What would be the appropriate number of vnodes (num_tokens) to use?

2017-10-09 Thread Li, Guangxing
Jeff, so the key really is to keep nodes load balanced, and as long as that such balance is achieved, using a smaller amount of vnodes does not have other negative impact? Thanks. George On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > 256 was chosen because the original

Re: What would be the appropriate number of vnodes (num_tokens) to use?

2017-10-09 Thread Li, Guangxing
That is good info. Thanks. George On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > One of my very smart coworkers who rarely posts to the list pointed out > privately that I've oversimplified this, and there are other advantages to > having more vnodes SOMETIMES. > > In

Re: What would be the appropriate number of vnodes (num_tokens) to use?

2017-10-09 Thread Jeff Jirsa
One of my very smart coworkers who rarely posts to the list pointed out privately that I've oversimplified this, and there are other advantages to having more vnodes SOMETIMES. In particular: most of our longest streaming operations (bootstrap/decommission/removenode) are cpu bound on the stream

Re: Stream is failing while removing the node

2017-10-09 Thread Jason Brown
Varun, Please open a JIRA ticket with all the details of what you are seeing. Thanks, -Jason On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Varun Barala wrote: > Hi developers, > > Recently, I was removing one node from the cluster without downtime. > > Cluster size :: 3 node [test