Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[Nate McCall]

>
> Can you please provide dome JIRAs for superior fixes and performance
> improvements which are present in 3.11.1 but are missing in 3.0.15.
>
>
For the security conscious, CASSANDRA-11695 allows you to use Cassandra's
authentication and authorization to lock down JMX/nodetool access instead
of relying on per-node configuration.

-- 
-
Nate McCall
Wellington, NZ
@zznate

CTO
Apache Cassandra Consulting
http://www.thelastpickle.com

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[shalom sagges]

Thanks a lot for the info!
Much appreciated.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:33 AM, Mick Semb Wever 
wrote:

>
>
>> Can you please provide dome JIRAs for superior fixes and performance
>> improvements which are present in 3.11.1 but are missing in 3.0.15.
>>
>
>
> Some that come to mind…
>
> Cassandra Storage Engine: CASSANDRA-12269, CASSANDRA-12731
>
> Streaming and Compaction: CASSANDRA-11206, CASSANDRA-
> 9766, CASSANDRA-11623,
>
> Reintroduce off heap memtables –  CASSANDRA-9472
>
>

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[Mick Semb Wever]

>
> Can you please provide dome JIRAs for superior fixes and performance
> improvements which are present in 3.11.1 but are missing in 3.0.15.
>


Some that come to mind…

Cassandra Storage Engine: CASSANDRA-12269, CASSANDRA-12731

Streaming and Compaction: CASSANDRA-11206, CASSANDRA-9766, CASSANDRA-11623,

Reintroduce off heap memtables –  CASSANDRA-9472

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[shini gupta]

Hi,

Can you please provide dome JIRAs for superior fixes and performance
improvements which are present in 3.11.1 but are missing in 3.0.15.

In addition,could you also provide the probable implications of the open
memory leak issue in Cassandra 3.11.
CASSANDRA-13929: BTree$Builder / io.netty.util.Recycler$Stack leaking memory


Is it still recommended to go for 3.11.

Thanks

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Jon Haddad  wrote:

> There’s a tweak to TWCS in 3.11.1 that lets data expire faster, but I
> wouldn’t call it unstable in any version I’ve ever used it with.  I’ve
> deployed it on 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 [1], and used it in every version of C* that
> we’ve shipped it, and have never had an issue.
>
> I would put 3.11.1 in prod over 3.0, there’s a number of performance
> improvements and a few nice features that make it worth it.  Off the top of
> my head, off heap memtables, a nice LIMIT optimization, and more flexible
> allow filtering options are all nice.
>
> [1] http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/01/10/twcs-part2.html
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2018, at 2:33 AM, shalom sagges  wrote:
>
> Thanks Guys!
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
> I'm interested in TWCS where I understand is more stable in 3.11.1 than in
> 3.0.15, tombstone compaction and slow logs.
>
> I don't plan to use MVs and SASI in the near future, as I understand are
> not Production ready.
>
> Is it okay to use the above features?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Mick Semb Wever 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I want to upgrade from 2.x to 3.x.
>>>
>>> I can definitely use the features in 3.11.1 but it's not a must.
>>> So my question is, is 3.11.1 stable and suitable for Production compared
>>> to 3.0.15?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Use 3.11.1 and don't use any 3.0.x or 3.x features.
>> 3.11.1 is effectively three sequential patch releases, and the tick-tock
>> releases offered a number of superior fixes and performance improvements
>> over what was done in 3.0.x.
>>
>> Introduce the use of new features later on, one at a time, after thorough
>> testing and staging.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mick
>>
>
>
>


-- 
-Shini Gupta

""Trusting in God won't make the mountain smaller,
But will make climbing easier.
Do not ask God for a lighter load
But ask Him for a stronger back... ""

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[Jon Haddad]

There’s a tweak to TWCS in 3.11.1 that lets data expire faster, but I wouldn’t 
call it unstable in any version I’ve ever used it with.  I’ve deployed it on 
2.0, 2.1, 2.2 [1], and used it in every version of C* that we’ve shipped it, 
and have never had an issue.  

I would put 3.11.1 in prod over 3.0, there’s a number of performance 
improvements and a few nice features that make it worth it.  Off the top of my 
head, off heap memtables, a nice LIMIT optimization, and more flexible allow 
filtering options are all nice.

[1] http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/01/10/twcs-part2.html 




> On Jan 7, 2018, at 2:33 AM, shalom sagges  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Guys!
> 
> Sorry for the late reply. 
> I'm interested in TWCS where I understand is more stable in 3.11.1 than in 
> 3.0.15, tombstone compaction and slow logs. 
> 
> I don't plan to use MVs and SASI in the near future, as I understand are not 
> Production ready. 
> 
> Is it okay to use the above features?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Mick Semb Wever  > wrote:
> 
> 
> I want to upgrade from 2.x to 3.x. 
> 
> I can definitely use the features in 3.11.1 but it's not a must. 
> So my question is, is 3.11.1 stable and suitable for Production compared to 
> 3.0.15?
> 
> 
> Use 3.11.1 and don't use any 3.0.x or 3.x features.
> 3.11.1 is effectively three sequential patch releases, and the tick-tock 
> releases offered a number of superior fixes and performance improvements over 
> what was done in 3.0.x.
> 
> Introduce the use of new features later on, one at a time, after thorough 
> testing and staging.
> 
> regards,
> Mick
> 

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[shalom sagges]

Thanks Guys!

Sorry for the late reply.
I'm interested in TWCS where I understand is more stable in 3.11.1 than in
3.0.15, tombstone compaction and slow logs.

I don't plan to use MVs and SASI in the near future, as I understand are
not Production ready.

Is it okay to use the above features?





On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:07 AM, Mick Semb Wever 
wrote:

>
>
>> I want to upgrade from 2.x to 3.x.
>>
>> I can definitely use the features in 3.11.1 but it's not a must.
>> So my question is, is 3.11.1 stable and suitable for Production compared
>> to 3.0.15?
>>
>
>
> Use 3.11.1 and don't use any 3.0.x or 3.x features.
> 3.11.1 is effectively three sequential patch releases, and the tick-tock
> releases offered a number of superior fixes and performance improvements
> over what was done in 3.0.x.
>
> Introduce the use of new features later on, one at a time, after thorough
> testing and staging.
>
> regards,
> Mick
>

Re: 3.0.15 or 3.11.1

[Mick Semb Wever]

>
> I want to upgrade from 2.x to 3.x.
>
> I can definitely use the features in 3.11.1 but it's not a must.
> So my question is, is 3.11.1 stable and suitable for Production compared
> to 3.0.15?
>


Use 3.11.1 and don't use any 3.0.x or 3.x features.
3.11.1 is effectively three sequential patch releases, and the tick-tock
releases offered a number of superior fixes and performance improvements
over what was done in 3.0.x.

Introduce the use of new features later on, one at a time, after thorough
testing and staging.

regards,
Mick