In case anyone saw this, it's a bad idea that I did not try. 

It will only work if you can put you system into a read only mode. Otherwise, when a node is taken down to do the upgrade and a client moves over to a second node the data it wrote to first node will not be there. 

It you have a web site with multiple server processes it's even more of a bonehead idea. 


On 27 Sep, 2010,at 05:31 PM, Aaron Morton <> wrote:

Yeah, I can only get away with it because the nodes have only 20GB each and there's a load of free space. 


On 27 Sep, 2010,at 05:25 PM, Jonathan Ellis <> wrote:

that should work, but requiring RF=N makes it of limited usefulness in
practice :)

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Aaron Morton <> wrote:
> It is indeed CASSANDRA-1465 where the NEWS.TXT was changed to say the wire
> protocol had changed
> As far as I can see the wire protocol change is to remove the string name of
> the TP stage from the message. I can do a shutdown upgrade, but was thinking
> of trying the following just to see if it works
> 1) I have a 4 node with RF3, first increase the RF to 4 and repair so each
> node has all the
> data
> 2) change my clients to use CL.ANY (i guess ONE would work as well)
> 3) change the listen_address on the nodes to localhost
> What I think I've done now is make a cluster of individual nodes, that
> cannot talk to each other. When a client connects (it has a list of nodes)
> to one node it should be able to read data and perform writes HH's will be
> stored to send the data to the other nodes in the cluster.
> 4) Upgrade each node in turn to the new 0.7 nightly, I would drain the node
> and delete the schema CF's as
> per
> 5) return the listen_address back to an empty setting, so the nodes see each
> other again. Then run repair on each node in turn to deliver the HH they
> collected while they could not communicate.
> 6) Change the RF back to 3 and nodetool cleanup on each
> Aside from "huh why?" any thoughts on if this would work? I have a slight
> opportunity to play around and am interested to see if I can roll this out
> without a full shutdown.
> Thanks
> Aaron
> On 22 Sep, 2010,at 02:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis <> wrote:
> Yes, I think that's the one.
> I imagine svn blame on NEWS would tell you for sure.
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Gary Dusbabek <> wrote:
>> 1465 maybe?
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:00, Aaron Morton <>
>> wrote:
>>> Just took a look upgrading from from 31/08 nightly to the 20/09 and
>>> noticed
>>> the news.txt says...
>>> "The Cassandra inter-node protocol is incompatible with 0.6.x releases
>>> (and
>>> with 0.7 beta1)"
>>> Could someone point me to the ticket(s) for this change so I can see if I
>>> can do a rolling upgrade.
>>> Thanks
>>> Aaron
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support

Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support