Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEDUwd3jWspg_v-4+dx3ArQyq9kOX0kKrCZQs9G1WdvTHnYReQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACCLA570xHKkU3zOQLd14d=jZcjVBz=gPMQ7wdp1nVdeCwun=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<54846DDF-04E3-43FF-ADA5-5B00BDEA1EB7@vast.com>
	<CACCLA559NpiFPW4LmJGbAaG_icy2kQcEn1S6HKUfN2sX2V9Y-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEDUwd3jWspg_v-4+dx3ArQyq9kOX0kKrCZQs9G1WdvTHnYReQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:30:13 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CACCLA55b=GLqFFzMYeZTXsp=vjQpSzBnY1DuiDXG7tgKQ=Z=Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What are problems with schema disagreement
From: John Wong <gokoproject@gmail.com>
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd76aead7f926051a3ac50d

--047d7bd76aead7f926051a3ac50d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks. Yeah we typically restart the nodes in the minor version to force
resync.

But is there a problem with letting schema disagreement running for a long
time?

Thanks.

John

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:31 PM, John Wong <gokoproject@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Graham. Thanks. We are still running on 1.2.16, but we do plan to
>> upgrade in the near future. The load on the cluster at the time was very
>> very low. All nodes were responsive, except nothing was show up in the logs
>> after certain time, which led me to believe something happened internal,
>> although that was a poor wild guess.
>>
>> But is it safe to be okay with schema disagreement? I worry about data
>> consistency if I let it sit too long.
>>
>
> In general one shouldn't run with schema disagreement persistently.
>
> I've seen schema desynch issues on 1.2.x, in general restarting some
> unclear subset of the affected daemons made them synch.
>
> =Rob
>
>

--047d7bd76aead7f926051a3ac50d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks. Yeah we typically restart the nodes in the minor v=
ersion to force resync.<div><br></div><div>But is there a problem with lett=
ing schema disagreement running for a long time?</div><div><br></div><div>T=
hanks.</div><div><br></div><div>John</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Robert Coli =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rcoli@eventbrite.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">rcoli@eventbrite.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:31 PM, John Wong <span=
 dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gokoproject@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>gokoproject@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div>Hi Graham. Thanks. We are still running on 1.2.16, but we do plan to u=
pgrade in the near future. The load on the cluster at the time was very ver=
y low. All nodes were responsive, except nothing was show up in the logs af=
ter certain time, which led me to believe something happened internal, alth=
ough that was a poor wild guess.</div><div><br></div><div>But is it safe to=
 be okay with schema disagreement? I worry about data consistency if I let =
it sit too long.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>=
<div>In general one shouldn&#39;t run with schema disagreement persistently=
.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;ve seen schema desynch issues on 1.2.x, in=
 general restarting some unclear subset of the affected daemons made them s=
ynch.</div><div><br></div><div>=3DRob</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></d=
iv>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7bd76aead7f926051a3ac50d--