RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
efore returning the data.” I set consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. From: Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com<mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com>] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org&

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Jonathan Haddad
the data from the closest replica to the client; >> otherwise, it is done before returning the data.” >> >> >> >> I set consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. >> >> >> >> *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] >>

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Jack Krupansky
done before returning the data.” > > > > I set consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. > > > > *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM > > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* RE: Rack

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. From: Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Rack aware question. Thanks, Read repair is what I thought must be causing this, so I experimented some

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
should document it better ? Thanks ! From: Paulo Motta [mailto:pauloricard...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:40 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Rack aware question. > How come 127.0.0.1 is shown as an endpoint holding the ID when its token > range doesn’t c

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Paulo Motta
> > > If we don’t want to support this ever, I’d think the ignore_rack flag > should just be deprecated. > > > > *From:* Robert Coli [mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:54 PM > > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Rack aware q

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
want to support this ever, I’d think the ignore_rack flag should just be deprecated. From: Robert Coli [mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:54 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Rack aware question. Actually, I believe you are seeing the behavior described

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Robert Coli
ery I ran was “select * from racktest.racktable where id=1” > > > > *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:04 PM > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* RE: Rack aware question. > > > > Thanks. > &

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Clint Martin
I could be wrong on this since I've never actually attempted what you are asking. Based on my understanding of how replica assignment is done, I don't think that just changing the rack on an existing node is a good idea. Changing racks for a node that already contains data would result in that

Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
Hello, Suppose we change the racks on VMs on a running cluster. (We need to do this while running on Azure, because sometimes when the VM gets moved its rack changes). In this situation, new writes will be laid out based on new rack info on appropriate replicas. What happens for existing data