A little experience report on MVs:

We use them in production (3.10-trunk) and they work really well on normal
read/write operations but streaming operations (bootstrap, repair, rebuild,
decommision) can kill your cluster and/or your nerves.
We will stay with MVs as we need them and want them.
I rolled out a patch on MV streaming on our production cluster a few hours
ago as we had problems with bootstrapping new nodes.

Before:
- Error log was completely flooded with WTEs
- Bootstrap either failed due to exceptions or wasn't even close to finish
after 24h - it just did not work

After
- Bootstrap finished without a single error log after less than 5:30h

I started to roll out that patch to the whole cluster to see how repairs
are affected. Will keep you updated.

There is no dedicated JIRA issue assigned as it addresses multiple tickets
like CASSANDRA-12905 + CASSANDRA-12888


2016-12-01 16:21 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com>:

> I agree with everything you just said, Kai.  I'd start a new project with
> 3.0.10.  I'd stay away from MVs though.
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM Kai Wang <dep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just based on a few observations on this list. Not one week goes by
>> without people asking which release is the most stable on 3.x line. Folks
>> at instaclustr also provide their own 3.x fork for stability issues. etc
>>
>> We developers already have enough to think about. I really don't feel
>> like spending time researching which release of C* I should choose. So for
>> me, 2.2.x is the choice in production.
>>
>> That being said, I have nothing against 3.x. I do like its new storage
>> engine. If I start a brand new project today with zero previous C*
>> experience, I probably would choose 3.0.10 as my starting point. However if
>> I were to upgrade to 3.x, I would have to test it thoroughly in a dev
>> environment with real production load and monitor it very closely on
>> performance, compaction, repair, bootstrap, replacing etc. Data is simply
>> too important to take chances with.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Shalom Sagges <shal...@liveperson.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Kai,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. Can you please elaborate on the reasons you'd pick
>> 2.2.6 over 3.0?
>>
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/164748> <http://twitter.com/liveperson>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/LivePersonInc> We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> <https://engage.liveperson.com/idc-mobile-first-consumer/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=idcsig>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Kai Wang <dep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have been running 2.2.6 in production. As of today I would still pick
>> it over 3.x for production.
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2016 5:42 AM, "Shalom Sagges" <shal...@liveperson.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I'm about to upgrade our 2.0.14 version to a newer 2.x version.
>> At first I thought of upgrading to 2.2.8, but I'm not sure how stable it
>> is, as I understand the 2.2 version was supposed to be a sort of beta
>> version for 3.0 feature-wise, whereas 3.0 upgrade will mainly handle the
>> storage modifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> So my question is, if I need a 2.x version (can't upgrade to 3 due to
>> client considerations), which one should I choose, 2.1.x or 2.2.x? (I'm
>> don't require any new features available in 2.2).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Shalom Sagges
>> DBA
>> T: +972-74-700-4035 <+972%2074-700-4035>
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/164748> <http://twitter.com/liveperson>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/LivePersonInc> We Create Meaningful Connections
>>
>> <https://engage.liveperson.com/idc-mobile-first-consumer/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=idcsig>
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this on behalf of
>> the addressee you must not use, copy, disclose or take action based on this
>> message or any information herein.
>> If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender
>> immediately by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Benjamin Roth
Prokurist

Jaumo GmbH · www.jaumo.com
Wehrstraße 46 · 73035 Göppingen · Germany
Phone +49 7161 304880-6 · Fax +49 7161 304880-1
AG Ulm · HRB 731058 · Managing Director: Jens Kammerer

Reply via email to