Ah. I was going by the upgrade recommendations in the NEWS.txt file in the
cassandra source tree, which didn't make mention of that version (1.0.11)
whatsoever. I didn't see any show-stoppers that would have prevented me from
going straight from 1.0.9 to 1.2.x.
1.0.9 - 1.0.12 - 1.1.12 - 1.2.x?
Because this fix in 1.0.11:
* fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes = 1.1
(CASSANDRA-4195)
-Jeremiah
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Mike Neir m...@liquidweb.com wrote:
Is there anything that you can link that describes the pitfalls you
Does your previous snapshot include the system keyspace? I haven't tried
upgrading from 1.0.x then rolling back, but it's possible there's some
backwards incompatible changes.Other than that, make sure you also rolled
back your config files?
On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Mike Neir
Sorry, I didn't see the test procedure, it's still early.
On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Mike Neir m...@liquidweb.com wrote:
Greetings folks,
I'm faced with the need to update a 36 node cluster with roughly 25T of data
on disk to a version of cassandra in the 1.2.x series. While it seems
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mike Neir m...@liquidweb.com wrote:
I'm faced with the need to update a 36 node cluster with roughly 25T of
data on disk to a version of cassandra in the 1.2.x series. While it seems
that 1.2.8 will play nicely in the 1.0.9 cluster long enough to do a
rolling
Greetings folks,
I'm faced with the need to update a 36 node cluster with roughly 25T of data on
disk to a version of cassandra in the 1.2.x series. While it seems that 1.2.8
will play nicely in the 1.0.9 cluster long enough to do a rolling upgrade, I'd
still like to have a roll-back plan in
If you have multiple DCs you at least want to upgrade to 1.0.11. There is
an issue where you might get errors during cross DC replication.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Mike Neir m...@liquidweb.com wrote:
In my testing, mixing 1.0.9 and 1.2.8 seems to work fine as long as there
is no need
In my testing, mixing 1.0.9 and 1.2.8 seems to work fine as long as there is no
need to do streaming operations (move/repair/bootstrap/etc). The reading I've
done confirms that 1.2.x should be network-compatible with 1.0.x, sans streaming
operations. Datastax seems to indicate here that doing a
You probably want to go to 1.0.11/12 first no matter what. If you want the
least chance of issue you should then go to 1.1.12. While there is a high
probability that going from 1.0.X-1.2 will work. You have the best chance at
no failures if you go through 1.1.12. There are some edge cases
Is there anything that you can link that describes the pitfalls you mention? I'd
like a bit more information. Just for clarity's sake, are you recommending 1.0.9
- 1.0.12 - 1.1.12 - 1.2.x? Or would 1.0.9 - 1.1.12 - 1.2.x suffice?
Regarding the placement strategy mentioned in a different post,
10 matches
Mail list logo
