RE: Local_serial >> Adding nodes

Please share exact timeout error message text to get idea what type of timeout you're facing. From: Nitan Kainth [mailto:ni...@bamlabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 7:24 AM To: vasu gunja <vasu.no...@gmail.com> Cc: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Local_serial >> Adding

Re: Local_serial >> Adding nodes

...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> We are having 2 DC setup each consists of 20 odd nodes and recently we >>> decided to add 6 more nodes to DC1. We are using LWT's, application >>> dirvers are configuared to use LOCAL_SERIA

Re: Local_serial >> Adding nodes

unja <vasu.no...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> We are having 2 DC setup each consists of 20 odd nodes and recently we >> decided to add 6 more nodes to DC1. We are using LWT's, application >> dirvers are configuared to us

Re: Local_serial >> Adding nodes

6 more nodes to DC1. We are using LWT's, application dirvers > are configuared to use LOCAL_SERIAL. > As we are adding multiple nodes at a time we used option > "-Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement=false" we added all nodes with gap of > 10 mins each > > We are facin

Local_serial >> Adding nodes

Hi All, We are having 2 DC setup each consists of 20 odd nodes and recently we decided to add 6 more nodes to DC1. We are using LWT's, application dirvers are configuared to use LOCAL_SERIAL. As we are adding multiple nodes at a time we used option "-Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement=

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote: > > I copied the wrong issue: > > The core issue was this: https://issues.apache. > org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6123 > Well, my previous remark applies equally well to this ticket so let me just copy-paste: "That ticket

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

hink that means it's never ever useful. > > > So, I am not sure about what is the good use case for LOCAL_SERIAL. > > Well, a good use case is when you're ok with operations within a > datacenter to > be linearizable, but can accept 2 operations in different datacenters to

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

unt on some service takes 500ms. So yes it's costly, as is most things that willingly depends on cross-DC latency, but I don't think that means it's never ever useful. > So, I am not sure about what is the good use case for LOCAL_SERIAL. Well, a good use case is when you're ok with operations

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

to New >> York takes 52ms just by speed of light in optic cable. Since LightWeight >> Transaction involves 4 network round-trips, it means at least 200ms just for >> raw network transfer, not even taking into account the cost of processing >> the operation >

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

re right to raise a warning about mixing LOCAL_SERIAL with SERIAL. > LOCAL_SERIAL guarantees you linearizability inside a DC, SERIAL guarantees > you linearizability across multiple DC. > > If I have 3 DCs with RF = 3 each (total 9 replicas) and I did an INSERT IF > NOT EXI

Re: Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

Transaction involves 4 network round-trips, it means at least 200ms just for raw network transfer, not even taking into account the cost of processing the operation You're right to raise a warning about mixing LOCAL_SERIAL with SERIAL. LOCAL_SERIAL guarantees you linearizability inside a DC, SERIAL

Benefit of LOCAL_SERIAL consistency

Hi, I have been using lightweight transactions for several months now and wondering what is the benefit of having LOCAL_SERIAL serial consistency level. With SERIAL, it achieves global linearlizability, but with LOCAL_SERIAL, it only achieves DC-local linearlizability, which is missing point

Re: LOCAL_SERIAL

Cassandra (local_serial or CAS would be fine), but it's largely a solved problem, and better tested than a home grown solution is likely to be. Don't be afraid of hard problems, but also don't fall prey to NIH syndrome. On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >

Re: LOCAL_SERIAL

I have two data centers and want to coordinate a bunch of services > in each data center (for example to load data into a per-DC system that is > not DC-aware (Solr)). > > Does it make sense to use CAS functionality with explicit LOCAL_SERIAL to > 'elect' a leader per data center

Re: LOCAL_SERIAL

ZK seems a little overkill for just 1 feature though. LOCAL_SERIAL is fine if all you want to do is keep a handful of keys up to date. There’s a massive cost in adding something new to your infrastructure, and imo, very little gain in this case. > On Oct 15, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Eric Stev

LOCAL_SERIAL

Hi, suppose I have two data centers and want to coordinate a bunch of services in each data center (for example to load data into a per-DC system that is not DC-aware (Solr)). Does it make sense to use CAS functionality with explicit LOCAL_SERIAL to 'elect' a leader per data center to do