Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25B73DCBF for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:21:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 59907 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jul 2012 13:21:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 59835 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jul 2012 13:21:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 59803 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jul 2012 13:21:04 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:21:04 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FSL_RCVD_USER,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omidaladini@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.44] (HELO mail-pb0-f44.google.com) (209.85.160.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:20:56 +0000 Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so13064982pbc.31 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=FI7j+6EyCDqc7qdJ9J+3rbcoxZ+TQVZyoLhEo89+ATA=; b=oun2GjiN4LaA03sPK/EL2gm+ilMTKY/66f8X80C2ryQyipQo3x7dDWZQQuUJM/5sZM kBtjM96XnsDepe/KW15NqNoarsmQJgBKh/0wWbRvAYdyl+gaoc+GKJtpmqm9eTGOFINq GxD5/8u4WDZX3ahf/HPWHpGZl4bglJHFuz6ANYfl6u2QKTJ0zaOY9vP3TjyUlR6z3G+H wr/ENMLpXVh7WjtA/vPbr+m6obTl+IRBBGtNsE49EYm1uygT6YxxWGCB/CxnbVEPNFU3 osfq1nYt11LnwD67mq587L6PsEwZsb0AEriTH10osv3VkCtAj9CZOZZirVagESMNKEAM 999Q== Received: by 10.68.221.38 with SMTP id qb6mr44227956pbc.144.1343136035055; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.234.102 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:19:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Omid Aladini Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:19:54 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Dropping counter mutations taking longer than rpc_timeout To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2496741291704c5933a55 --e89a8ff2496741291704c5933a55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hey, Mutations taking longer than rpc_timeout will be dropped because coordinator won't be waiting for the coordinator and will return TimeoutException to the client, if it doesn't reach the consistency level [1]. In case of counters though, since counter mutations aren't idempotent, the client is not supposed to retry an increment on TimeoutException. So why doesn't a counter mutation gets processed regardless of rpc_timeout? Cheers, Omid [1] http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FAQ#dropped_messages --e89a8ff2496741291704c5933a55 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey,

Mutations taking longer than rpc_timeout will be droppe= d because coordinator won't be waiting for the coordinator and will ret= urn TimeoutException to the client, if it doesn't reach the consistency= level [1].=C2=A0

In case of counters though,=C2=A0since counter mutation= s aren't idempotent,=C2=A0the client is not supposed to retry an increm= ent on TimeoutException. So why doesn't a counter mutation gets process= ed regardless of rpc_timeout?

Cheers,
Omid

=

--e89a8ff2496741291704c5933a55--