Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

I feel like we've had a very similar conversation (not so) recently: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9952c419398a1a2f22e2887e3492f9d6899365f0ea7c2b68d6fbe0d4@%3Cuser.cassandra.apache.org%3E Which led to the creation of this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13645 On

Re: A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

I think this was how it was in the dark ages, with the wiki and all. I believe the reason why they shifted to in-tree docs is that this way, people who make changes to the code are more likely to make the corresponding doc changes as well, and reviewers have it easier to ensure docs are updated

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

Since this is basically driver syntactic sugar... Yes I'll try that. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > You could use a load balancing policy at the driver level to do what you > want, mixed with the existing consistency levels as Jeff suggested. > >

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

You could use a load balancing policy at the driver level to do what you want, mixed with the existing consistency levels as Jeff suggested. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carl Mueller wrote: > But we COULD have CL2 write (for RF4) > > The extension to this idea

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

But we COULD have CL2 write (for RF4) The extension to this idea is multiple backup/secondary replicas. So you have RF5 or RF6 or higher, but still are performing CL2 against the preferred first three for both read and write. You could also ascertain the general write health of affected ranges

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

Write at CL 3 and read at CL 2 -- Jeff Jirsa > On Mar 14, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Carl Mueller > wrote: > > Currently there is little use for RF4. You're getting the requirements of > QUORUM-3 but only one extra backup. > > I'd like to propose something that would

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

I also wonder if the state of hinted handoff can inform the validity of extra replicas. Repair is mentioned in 7168. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Carl Mueller wrote: > For my reference: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7168 > > > On Wed, Mar 14,

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

For my reference: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7168 On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Ariel Weisberg wrote: > Hi, > > There is a JIRA for decoupling the size of the group size used for > consensus with level of data redundancy. https://issues.apache.org/ >

Re: Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

Hi, There is a JIRA for decoupling the size of the group size used for consensus with level of data redundancy. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13442 It's been discussed quite a bit offline and I did a presentation on it at NGCC. Hopefully we will see some movement on it soon.

Making RF4 useful aka primary and secondary ranges

Currently there is little use for RF4. You're getting the requirements of QUORUM-3 but only one extra backup. I'd like to propose something that would make RF4 a sort of more heavily backed up RF3. A lot of this is probably achievable with strictly driver-level logic, so perhaps it would belong

A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14313 For some reason I'm told by many committers that we should not have sets of documentation for other versions than the current version in a tree for that version. This has made it difficult, maybe impossible to have documentation for all

RE: Pull request question

Thanks. Something is not working right or I have brain fog. I tried twice. Got unwanted results each time so I closed the pull requests with uncommitted merges. I hope that is okay. Here is the JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14312 I must need to do something to sync

Re: Pull request question

Hi Kenneth, Normally you would open a Jira ticket and put the details in there including a link to your branch, pull request or patch. Is this pull request associated with a jira? If so, could you please point us to it? And yes, normally you would send pull requests against trunk unless they're