incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Lowe <richard.l...@arkivum.com>
Subject RE: exception when attempting to truncate a table
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:37:08 GMT
I'd double-check the firewall on each node to make sure the storage and RPC ports aren't being
blocked.

We've found that "Up" in nodetool ring output reflects the gossip status, which means only
that one of the nodes can contact the node, not necessarily the entire ring. It's possible
for the entire ring to be "Up" but some nodes to be uncontactable by specific nodes due to
the local firewall configuration on that node.

For example, if 10.0.0.61 can contact 10.0.1.61 but 10.0.0.62 can't then 10.0.1.61 will still
appear as "Up", even though it cannot be contacted by 10.0.0.62.

This is especially relevant in multi-DC environments, where network topology may mean that
not all nodes can contact nodes in the other DC. If the network is segregated in this way
then you won't be able to use truncate. This seems to have nothing to do with the replication
factor of an individual keyspace because truncate requires the entire ring to be available,
regardless of whether the keyspace is replicated to all nodes.

I should mention that we're using 0.8.x so the behaviour may be have changed with 1.0.x.

-Richard


From: Cyril Scetbon [mailto:cyril.scetbon@free.fr]
Sent: 21 March 2012 18:33
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: exception when attempting to truncate a table

Hi,

I'm using version 1.0.7 and when I try to truncate a CF in cqlsh it raises an error message,
but it seems incorrect ...

cqlsh:ks1> truncate core;
Unable to complete request: one or more nodes were unavailable.

>nodetool -h localhost ring
                                                                              155962751505430129087380028406227096917
10.0.0.61       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  75.8 GB         8.33%   0
10.0.0.62       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  72.84 GB        8.33%   14178431955039102644307275309657008810
10.0.1.61       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  72.54 GB        8.33%   28356863910078205288614550619314017621
10.0.1.62       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  108.11 GB       8.33%   42535295865117307932921825928971026432
10.0.0.63       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  72.37 GB        8.33%   56713727820156410577229101238628035242
10.0.0.64       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  72.56 GB        8.33%   70892159775195513221536376548285044053
10.0.1.63       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  73.09 GB        8.33%   85070591730234615865843651857942052864
10.0.1.64       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  169.85 GB       8.33%   99249023685273718510150927167599061674
10.0.0.65       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  72.33 GB        8.33%   113427455640312821154458202477256070485
10.0.0.66       DC1         RAC1        Up     Normal  93.12 GB        8.33%   127605887595351923798765477786913079296
10.0.1.65       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  88.16 GB        8.33%   141784319550391026443072753096570088106
10.0.1.66       DC2         RAC1        Up     Normal  92.46 GB        8.33%   155962751505430129087380028406227096917

any idea ?

thanks


--

Cyril SCETBON

Mime
View raw message