cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jingsi Zhu (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-5571) Reject bootstrapping endpoints that are already in the ring with different gossip data
Date Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:37:47 GMT


Jingsi Zhu commented on CASSANDRA-5571:

Hi, Jingsi Zhu is no longer at Facebook so this email address is no longer being monitored.
If you need assistance, please contact another person who is currently at the company.

> Reject bootstrapping endpoints that are already in the ring with different gossip data
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-5571
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Rick Branson
>            Assignee: Rick Branson
> The ring can be silently broken by improperly bootstrapping an endpoint that has an existing
entry in the gossip table. In the case where a node attempts to bootstrap with the same IP
address as an existing ring member, the old token metadata is dropped without warning, resulting
in range shifts for the cluster.
> This isn't so bad for non-vnode cases where, in general, tokens are explicitly assigned,
and a bootstrap on the same token would result in no range shifts. For vnode cases, the convention
is to just let nodes come up by selecting their own tokens, and a bootstrap will override
the existing tokens for that endpoint.
> While there are some other issues open for adding an explicit rebootstrap feature for
vnode cases, given the changes in operator habits for vnode rings, it seems a bit too easy
to make this happen. Even more undesirable is the fact that it's basically silent.
> This is a proposal for checking for this exact case: bootstraps on endpoints with existing
ring entries that have different hostIDs and/or tokens should be rejected with an error message
describing what happened and how to override the safety check. It looks like the override
can be supported using the existing "nodetool removenode -force".
> I can work up a patch for this.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message