Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A307200C78 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 07:56:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 38D7E160BBA; Thu, 4 May 2017 05:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D941160BB5 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 07:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 8079 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2017 05:56:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 8069 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2017 05:56:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 May 2017 05:56:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 64E8D1883A5 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 05:56:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.499 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpEpEnRrKGFT for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 05:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.eefung.com (mail.eefung.com [218.76.35.26]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 0F2CF5FC64 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 05:56:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eefung.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AFDA935F for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:56:33 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at eefung.com Received: from mail.eefung.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.eefung.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dKeZs9h5MbgP for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:56:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from [192.168.81.34] (unknown [113.247.222.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eefung.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CD7E778CA for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:56:32 +0800 (CST) From: kevin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A4C7C3F-42E5-4D36-A01E-0AC714DB8B28" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Subject: Fail to add a new node to a exist cluster Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 13:56:32 +0800 To: user@cassandra.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) archived-at: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:56:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8A4C7C3F-42E5-4D36-A01E-0AC714DB8B28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 I have a Cassandra(v3.7) cluster with 31 nodes, each node=A1=AFs hard = configuration is 4cpu, 64GB memory, 8TB hard disk, and each node has = stored about 4TB of data now. When I joined a new node, I found that the = process has not been completed for more than a week, while the CPU load = of new node and some other nodes continued to be high, and finally had = to give up join. Is it a new node to join the process itself is very = slow, or our way of use (too much data per node) improper and cause this = problem? Is there any good way to speed up the process of adding new = nodes? Thanks, Kevin --Apple-Mail=_8A4C7C3F-42E5-4D36-A01E-0AC714DB8B28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=gb2312
I have a Cassandra(v3.7) cluster with 31 nodes, each = node=A1=AFs hard configuration is 4cpu, 64GB memory, 8TB hard disk, and = each node has stored about 4TB of data now. When I joined a new node, I = found that the process has not been completed for more than a week, = while the CPU load of new node and some other nodes = continued to be high, and finally had to give up join. Is it a new node = to join the process itself is very slow, or our way of use (too much = data per node) improper and cause this problem? Is there any good way to = speed up the process of adding new nodes?
Thanks,
Kevin






= --Apple-Mail=_8A4C7C3F-42E5-4D36-A01E-0AC714DB8B28--