We are doing the "adding a node then decommissioning a node" to achieve better availability. Replacing a node need to shut down one node first, if another node is down during the node replacement period, we will get availability drop because most of our use case is local_quorum with replication factor 3.
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:59 AM Bowen Song via user < user@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: > Have you thought of using "-Dcassandra.replace_address_first_boot=..." (or > "-Dcassandra.replace_address=..." if you are using an older version)? This > will not result in a topology change, which means "nodetool cleanup" is not > needed after the operation is completed. > On 05/05/2023 05:24, Jaydeep Chovatia wrote: > > Thanks, Jeff! > But in our environment we replace nodes quite often for various > optimization purposes, etc. say, almost 1 node per day (node *addition* > followed by node *decommission*, which of course changes the topology), > and we have a cluster of size 100 nodes with 300GB per node. If we have to > run cleanup on 100 nodes after every replacement, then it could take > forever. > What is the recommendation until we get this fixed in Cassandra itself as > part of compaction (w/o externally triggering *cleanup*)? > > Jaydeep > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Cleanup is fast and cheap and basically a no-op if you haven’t changed >> the ring >> >> After cassandra has transactional cluster metadata to make ring changes >> strongly consistent, cassandra should do this in every compaction. But >> until then it’s left for operators to run when they’re sure the state of >> the ring is correct . >> >> >> >> On May 4, 2023, at 7:41 PM, Jaydeep Chovatia <chovatia.jayd...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Isn't this considered a kind of *bug* in Cassandra because as we know >> *cleanup* is a lengthy and unreliable operation, so relying on the >> *cleanup* means higher chances of data resurrection? >> Do you think we should discard the unowned token-ranges as part of the >> regular compaction itself? What are the pitfalls of doing this as part of >> compaction itself? >> >> Jaydeep >> >> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 7:25 PM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> compact ion will just merge duplicate data and remove delete data in >>> this node .if you add or remove one node for the cluster, I think clean up >>> is needed. if clean up failed, I think we should come to see the reason. >>> >>> Runtian Liu <curly...@gmail.com> 于2023年5月5日周五 06:37写道： >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Is cleanup the sole method to remove data that does not belong to a >>>> specific node? In a cluster, where nodes are added or decommissioned from >>>> time to time, failure to run cleanup may lead to data resurrection issues, >>>> as deleted data may remain on the node that lost ownership of certain >>>> partitions. Or is it true that normal compactions can also handle data >>>> removal for nodes that no longer have ownership of certain data? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Runtian >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> you are the apple of my eye ! >>> >>
