incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tyler Hobbs <ty...@riptano.com>
Subject Re: Quorum: killing 1 out of 3 server kills the cluster (?)
Date Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:50:14 GMT
If you switch your writes to CL ONE when a failure occurs, you might as well
use ONE for all writes.  ONE and QUORUM behave the same when all nodes are
working correctly.

- Tyler

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Timo Nentwig <timo.nentwig@toptarif.de>wrote:

>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 17:55, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>
> >> I naively assume that if I kill either node that holds N1 (i.e. node 1
> or 3), N1 will still remain on another node. Only if both fail, I actually
> lose data. But apparently this is not how it works...
> >
> > Sure, the data that N1 holds is also on another node and you won't
> > lose it by only losing N1.
> > But when you do a quorum query, you are saying to Cassandra "Please
> > please would you fail my request
> > if you can't get a response from 2 nodes". So if only 1 node holding
> > the data is up at the moment of the
> > query then Cassandra, which is a very polite software, do what you
> > asked and fail.
>
> And my application would fall back to ONE. Quorum writes will also fail so
> I would also use ONE so that the app stays up. What would I have to do make
> the data to redistribute when the broken node is up again? Simply call
> nodetool repair on it?
>
> > If you want Cassandra to send you an answer with only one node up, use
> > CL=ONE (as said by David).
> >
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylvain@yakaz.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I'ts 2 out of the number of replicas, not the number of nodes. At RF=2,
> you have
> >>> 2 replicas. And since quorum is also 2 with that replication factor,
> >>> you cannot lose
> >>> a node, otherwise some query will end up as UnavailableException.
> >>>
> >>> Again, this is not related to the total number of nodes. Even with 200
> >>> nodes, if
> >>> you use RF=2, you will have some query that fail (altough much less
> that what
> >>> you are probably seeing).
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Timo Nentwig <timo.nentwig@toptarif.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 9, 2010, at 16:50, Daniel Lundin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Quorum is really only useful when RF > 2, since the for a quorum
to
> >>>>> succeed RF/2+1 replicas must be available.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2/2+1==2 and I killed 1 of 3, so... don't get it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This means for RF = 2, consistency levels QUORUM and ALL yield the
> same result.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /d
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Timo Nentwig <
> timo.nentwig@toptarif.de> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've 3 servers running (0.7rc1) with a replication_factor of
2 and
> use quorum for writes. But when I shut down one of them
> UnavailableExceptions are thrown. Why is that? Isn't that the sense of
> quorum and a fault-tolerant DB that it continues with the remaining 2 nodes
> and redistributes the data to the broken one as soons as its up again?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What may I be doing wrong?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thx
> >>>>>> tcn
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message