And once the cluster token map formation is done, it starts bootstrap and we get a ton of these:
WARN [MessagingService-Incoming-/2406:da14:95b:4503:910e:23fd:dafa:9983] 2019-06-12 15:22:04,760 IncomingTcpConnection.java:100 - UnknownColumnFamilyException reading from socket; closing org.apache.cassandra.db.UnknownColumnFamilyException: Couldn't find cfId=df425400-c331-11e8-8b96-4b7f4d58af68 And then after LOTS of those INFO [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,515 StorageService.java:1142 - JOINING: Starting to bootstrap... INFO [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,525 StreamResultFuture.java:87 - [Stream #05af9ee0-8d26-11e9-85c1-bd5476090c54] Executing streaming plan for Bootstrap INFO [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,526 StorageService.java:1199 - Bootstrap completed! for the tokens [-7314981925085449175, ... bunch of tokens... 5499447097629838103] On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Carl Mueller <carl.muel...@smartthings.com> wrote: > One node at a time: yes that is what we are doing > > We have not tried the streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms. It is currently 24 > hours. (```streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms=86400000```) which would cover > the bootstrap timeframe we have seen before (1-2 hours per node) > > Since it joins with no data, it is serving erroneous data. We may try > bootstrap rejoin and the JVM_OPT.... The node appears to think it has > bootstrapped even though the gossipinfo shows the new node has a different > schema version. > > We had scaled EU and US from 5 --> 25 without incident (one at a time), > and since we increased ring_delay_ms worked haphazardly to get us four > joins, and since then failure. > > The debug log shows: > > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,559 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 at token 9200286188287490229 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,559 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 at token 950856676715905899 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,563 MigrationManager.java:96 - > Not pulling schema because versions match or shouldPullSchemaFrom returned > false > INFO [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,563 TokenMetadata.java:464 - > Updating topology for /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 > INFO [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,564 TokenMetadata.java:464 - > Updating topology for /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,565 MigrationManager.java:96 - > Not pulling schema because versions match or shouldPullSchemaFrom returned > false > INFO [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,565 Gossiper.java:1027 - Node > /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 is now part of the cluster > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,587 StorageService.java:1928 - > Node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 state NORMAL, token > [-1028768087263234868, ...<bunch of tokens>..., 921670352349030554] > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,588 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token > -1028768087263234868 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,588 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token > -1045740236536355596 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,589 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token > -1184422937682103096 > DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,589 StorageService.java:1998 - > New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token > -1201924032068728250 > > All the nodes appear to be reporting "Not pulling schema becuase versions > match or shouldPullSchmeaFrom returned false. That code > (MigrationManager.java) makes reference to a "gossip only" node, did we get > stuck in that somehow. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM ZAIDI, ASAD A <az1...@att.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Adding one node at a time – is that successful? >> >> Check value of streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms parameter in cassandra.yaml >> and increase if needed. >> >> Have you tried Nodetool bootstrap resume & jvm option i.e. >> JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement=false" ? >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Carl Mueller [mailto:carl.muel...@smartthings.com.INVALID] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:35 AM >> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: postmortem on 2.2.13 scale out difficulties >> >> >> >> We only were able to scale out four nodes and then failures started >> occurring, including multiple instances of nodes joining a cluster without >> streaming. >> >> >> >> Sigh. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:11 PM Carl Mueller < >> carl.muel...@smartthings.com> wrote: >> >> We had a three-DC (asia-tokyo/europe/us) cassandra 2.2.13 cluster, AWS, >> IPV6 >> >> Needed to scale out the asia datacenter, which was 5 nodes, europe and us >> were 25 nodes >> >> We were running into bootstrapping issues where the new node failed to >> bootstrap/stream, it failed with >> >> >> >> "java.lang.RuntimeException: A node required to move the data >> consistently is down" >> >> >> >> ...even though they were all up based on nodetool status prior to adding >> the node. >> >> First we increased the phi_convict_threshold to 12, and that did not >> help. >> >> CASSANDRA-12281 appeared similar to what we had problems with, but I >> don't think we hit that. Somewhere in there someone wrote >> >> >> >> "For us, the workaround is either deleting the data (then bootstrap >> again), or increasing the ring_delay_ms. And the larger the cluster is, the >> longer ring_delay_ms is needed. Based on our tests, for a 40 nodes cluster, >> it requires ring_delay_ms to be >50seconds. For a 70 nodes cluster, >> >100seconds. Default is 30seconds." >> >> Given the WAN nature or our DCs, we used ring_delay_ms to 100 seconds and >> it finally worked. >> >> side note: >> >> During the rolling restarts for setting phi_convict_threshold we observed >> quite a lot of status map variance between nodes (we have a program to poll >> all of a datacenter or cluster's view of the gossipinfo and statuses. AWS >> appears to have variance in networking based on the phi_convict_threshold >> advice, I'm not sure if our difficulties were typical in that regard and/or >> if our IPV6 and/or globally distributed datacenters were exacerbating >> factors. >> >> We could not reproduce this in loadtest, although loadtest is only eu and >> us (but is IPV6) >> >>
