cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Or Sher <or.sh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: nodetool status owns % calculation after upgrade to 2.0.2
Date Mon, 06 Jan 2014 06:55:06 GMT
RandomPartitioner was the default at  < 1.2.*
It looks like since 1.2 the default is Murmur3..
Not sure that's your problem if you say you've upgraded from 1.2.*..


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Rob Mullen <robert.mullen@pearson.com>wrote:

> Do you know of the default changed?   I'm pretty sure I never changed that
> setting the the config file.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Or Sher <or.sher1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robert, is it possible you've changed the partitioner during the upgrade?
> (e.g. from RandomPartitioner to Murmur3Partitioner ?)
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Mullen, Robert <robert.mullen@pearson.com>wrote:
>
>> The nodetool repair command (which took about 8 hours) seems to have
>> sync'd the data in us-east, all 3 nodes returning 59 for the count now.
>>  I'm wondering if this has more to do with changing the replication factor
>> from 2 to 3 and how 2.0.2 reports the % owned rather than the upgrade
>> itself.  I still don't understand why it's reporting 16% for each node when
>> 100% seems to reflect the state of the cluster better.  I didn't find any
>> info in those issues you posted that would relate to the % changing from
>> 100% ->16%.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Mullen, Robert <
>> robert.mullen@pearson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> from cql
>>> cqlsh>select count(*) from topics;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mullen, Robert <
>>>> robert.mullen@pearson.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a column family called "topics" which has a count of 47 on one
>>>>> node, 59 on another and 49 on another node. It was my understanding with
a
>>>>> replication factor of 3 and 3 nodes in each ring that the nodes should
be
>>>>> equal so I could lose a node in the ring and have no loss of data.  Based
>>>>> upon that I would expect the counts across the nodes to all be 59 in
this
>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In what specific way are you counting rows?
>>>>
>>>> =Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Or Sher
>
>


-- 
Or Sher

Mime
View raw message