Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7844A719E for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 05:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20099 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2011 05:17:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 20067 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2011 05:17:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 20054 invoked by uid 99); 6 Sep 2011 05:17:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:17:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of talk2amulya@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.44] (HELO mail-vw0-f44.google.com) (209.85.212.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:17:02 +0000 Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so5388823vws.31 for ; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:16:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Wx8Afmm8cZac/QPO15w2Xwn9+6Oao6oyEH5It32dkJw=; b=t/Oz5cktRjYm3YUqB5o2xMwNCPGzEYrCGh2YvSpSN9VCOdfXlyiS1E8ixjdaDQVGql EF4pOs2iIwhNT4yfREyVUvoWtdH45aFMV2aDLVuyQvReOZXd1sbqL5An1/6Ay2HyddOt k+AF8V7HrnN1oQ+prJOR6eiGMq5tCX2GdJrQs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.139.65 with SMTP id qw1mr4099074vdb.429.1315286201321; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.4 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 22:16:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:16:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: load balance issue From: amulya rattan To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52c6739cec74e04ac3eee35 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec52c6739cec74e04ac3eee35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This is golden! thanks a heap guys On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Nick Bailey wrote: > You can place each of the 4 new nodes exactly in the middle of 2 of > the current nodes. This way each node will still be responsible for > the same amount of data but your old nodes did not move. > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:56 PM, amulya rattan > wrote: > > Ah, missed that. Thanks for the pointer. > > While we are at it, the doc says that if I am doubling the strength of my > > cluster, and I assign calculated tokens to the new nodes, i don't need to > do > > the nodetool move for old nodes. Won't I have to assign the old nodes > with > > their new respective tokens too? If I had 4 nodes and I add 4 more, the > > token distribution for each node changes. Then how could I get away with > not > > assigning old nodes with new tokens? > > ~Amulya > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Sylvain Lebresne > > wrote: > >> > >> Have you done step 6 of the 'To add nodes to a Cassandra cluster' of > >> http://www.datastax.com/docs/0.8/operations/clustering#adding-capacity, > >> aka, run nodetool cleanup on the previously existing nodes ? > >> > >> -- > >> Sylvain > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM, amulya rattan > >> wrote: > >> > Hi there, > >> > I had a 3 nodes ring, added a 4th one, and moved others to > appropriate > >> > tokens..doing nodetool ring shows: > >> > 127.0.0.1 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 348.82 MB > >> > 25.00% 0 > >> > 127.0.0.2 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 349.81 MB > >> > 25.00% 42535295865117307932921825928971026432 > >> > 127.0.0.3 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 437.04 MB > >> > 25.00% 85070591730234615865843651857942052864 > >> > 127.0.0.4 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 261.74 MB > >> > 25.00% 127605887595351923798765477786913079296 > >> > Although it shows 25% on all nodes, the data distribution seems > totally > >> > unbalanced, how did that happen? > >> > Also if I happen to have a thousand node cluster, and add another 100 > >> > nodes, > >> > is it ok to start moving all nodes to their respective new tokens > >> > simultaneously or one-by-one? > >> > Any response is appreciated. > >> > ~Amulya > > > > > --bcaec52c6739cec74e04ac3eee35 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is golden! thanks a heap guys

On Mon= , Sep 5, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Nick Bailey <nick@datastax.com> wrote:
You can place each of the 4 new nodes exactly in the middle of 2 of
the current nodes. This way each node will still be responsible for
the same amount of data but your old nodes did not move.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:56 PM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, missed that. Thanks for the pointer.
> While we are at it, the doc says that if I am doubling the strength of= my
> cluster, and I assign calculated tokens to the new nodes, i don't = need to do
> the nodetool move for old nodes. Won't I have to assign the old no= des with
> their new respective tokens too? If I had 4 nodes and I add 4 more, th= e
> token distribution for each node changes. Then how could I get away wi= th not
> assigning old nodes with new tokens?
> ~Amulya
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylvain@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Have you done step 6 of the 'To add nodes to a Cassandra clust= er' of
>> http://www.datastax.com/docs/0.8/operati= ons/clustering#adding-capacity,
>> aka, run nodetool cleanup on the previously existing nodes ?
>>
>> --
>> Sylvain
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM, amulya rattan <talk2amulya@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi there,
>> > I had a 3 nodes ring, added a 4th one, =A0and moved others to= appropriate
>> > tokens..doing nodetool ring shows:
>> > 127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 datacenter1 rack1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Up =A0 = =A0 Normal =A0348.82 MB
>> > 25.00% =A00
>> > 127.0.0.2 =A0 =A0 =A0 datacenter1 rack1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Up =A0 = =A0 Normal =A0349.81 MB
>> > 25.00% =A042535295865117307932921825928971026432
>> > 127.0.0.3 =A0 =A0 =A0 datacenter1 rack1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Up =A0 = =A0 Normal =A0437.04 MB
>> > 25.00%=A0=A085070591730234615865843651857942052864
>> > 127.0.0.4 =A0 =A0 =A0 datacenter1 rack1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Up =A0 = =A0 Normal =A0261.74 MB
>> > 25.00%=A0=A0127605887595351923798765477786913079296
>> > Although it shows 25% on all nodes, the data distribution see= ms totally
>> > unbalanced, how did that happen?
>> > Also if I happen to have a thousand node cluster, and add ano= ther 100
>> > nodes,
>> > is it ok to start moving all nodes to their respective new to= kens
>> > simultaneously or one-by-one?
>> > Any response is appreciated.
>> > ~Amulya
>
>

--bcaec52c6739cec74e04ac3eee35--