cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Coli <>
Subject Re: run cassandra on a small instance
Date Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:57:11 GMT
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Andrew <> wrote:

> Let me know if I’m off base about this—but I feel like I see a lot of
> posts that are like this (i.e., use this arbitrary version, not this other
> arbitrary version).  Why are releases going out if they’re “broken”?  This
> seems like a very confusing way for new (and existing) users to approach
> versions...

In my opinion and in no way speaking for or representing Apache Cassandra,
Datastax, or anyone else :

I think it's a problem of messaging, and a mismatch of expectations between
the development team and operators.

I think the "stable" versions are stable by the dev team's standards, and
not by operators' standards. While testing has historically been IMO
insufficient for a data-store (where correctness really matters) there are
also various issues which probably can not realistically be detected in
testing. Of course, operators need to be willing to operate (ideally in
non-production) near the cutting edge in order to assist in the detection
and resolution of these bugs, but I think the project does itself a
disservice by encouraging noobs to run these versions. You only get one
chance to make a first impression, as the saying goes.

My ideal messaging would probably say something like "versions near the
cutting edge should be treated cautiously, conservative operators should
run mature point releases in production and only upgrade to near the
cutting edge after extended burn-in in dev/QA/stage environments."

A fair response to this critique is that operators should know better than
to trust that x.y.0-5 release versions of any open source software are
likely to be production ready, even if the website says "stable" next to
the download. Trust, but verify?


View raw message