Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Jeff Jirsa
On Apr 20, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> >> >> Those were just given as examples. Each would be discussed on its own, >> assuming we are able to find a way to cooperate. >> >> >> These are relatively simple and it wouldn't be hard for use to patch >>

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Josh McKenzie
> The drivers are not part of Cassandra, so what "the server" is for drivers is > up to their maintainer. I'm pretty sure the driver communities don't spend a lot of time worrying about their Scylla compatibility. That's your cross to bear. On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Ariel Weisberg

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Ariel Weisberg
Hi, > This doesn't work without additional changes, for RF>1. The token ring could > place two replicas of the same token range on the same physical server, even > though those are two separate cores of the same server. You could add another > element to the hierarchy (cluster -> datacenter ->

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 2018-04-19 21:15, Ben Bromhead wrote: Re #3: Yup I was thinking each shard/port would appear as a discrete server to the client. This doesn't work without additional changes, for RF>1. The token ring could place two replicas of the same token range on the same physical server, even

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Avi Kivity
You're right in principle, but in practice we haven't seen problems with the term. On 2018-04-19 20:31, Michael Shuler wrote: This is purely my own opinion, but I find the use of the term 'shard' quite unfortunate in the context of a distributed database. The historical usage of the term has

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 2018-04-20 12:03, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: Those were just given as examples. Each would be discussed on its own, assuming we are able to find a way to cooperate. These are relatively simple and it wouldn't be hard for use to patch Cassandra. But I want to find a way to make more

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 2018-04-19 20:43, Ariel Weisberg wrote: Hi, So at technical level I don't understand this yet. So you have a database consisting of single threaded shards and a socket for accept that is generating TCP connections and in advance you don't know which connection is going to send messages

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Avi Kivity
On 2018-04-19 20:33, Ariel Weisberg wrote: Hi, That basically means a fork in the protocol (perhaps a temporary fork if we go for mode 2 where Cassandra retroactively adopts our protocol changes, if they fit will). Implementing a protocol change may be easy for some simple changes, but in