I posted a bug, cassandra-15155 : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15155?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA
It seems VERY similar to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6648 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:14 PM Carl Mueller <carl.muel...@smartthings.com> wrote: > 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) >>> >>>
