Joey Lynch had a good idea - that if the allocate tokens for RF isn't set
we use 1 as the RF. I suggested we take it a step further and use the rack
count as the RF if it's not set.
This should take care of most clusters even if they don't set the RF, and
will handle the uneven distribution when provisioning a new cluster.
The only case where you'd want more tokens is to scale down, which I saw in
very few clusters of the hundreds I've worked on.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:35 AM Jeremiah Jordan
wrote:
> If you don’t know what you are doing you will have one rack which will
> also be safe. If you are setting up racks then you most likely read
> something about doing that, and should also be fine.
> This discussion has gone off the rails 100 times with what ifs that are
> “letting perfect be the enemy of good”. The setting doesn’t need to be
> perfect. It just needs to be “good enough“.
>
> > On Feb 19, 2020, at 1:44 AM, Mick Semb Wever
> wrote:
> >
> > Why do we have to assume random assignment?
> >
> >
> >
> > Because token allocation only works once you have a node in RF racks. If
> > you don't bootstrap nodes in alternating racks, or just never have RF
> racks
> > setup (but more than one rack) it's going to be random.
> >
> > Whatever default we choose should be a safe choice, not the best for
> > experts. Making it safe (4 as the default would be great) shouldn't be
> > difficult, and I thought Joey was building a list of related issues?
> >
> > Seeing these issues put together summarised would really help build the
> > consensus IMHO.
> >
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
