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 9463AEC78 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29901 invoked by uid 500); 23 Feb 2013 09:27:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 29645 invoked by uid 500); 23 Feb 2013 09:27:24 -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 29617 invoked by uid 99); 23 Feb 2013 09:27:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:27:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of btv1==76682a3ac93==mkjellman@barracuda.com designates 64.235.145.82 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.235.145.82] (HELO bsf02.barracuda.com) (64.235.145.82) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:27:18 +0000 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1361611617-03e1a547d21e14f70001-f7dORa Received: from bn-scl-fe05.Cudanet.local (bn-scl-fe05.cudanet.local [10.8.1.46]) by bsf02.barracuda.com with ESMTP id 0xbBjw655B5SGcWK (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:57 -0800 (PST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: mkjellman@barracuda.com Received: from bn-scl-be03.Cudanet.local (10.8.1.54) by bn-scl-fe05.Cudanet.local (10.8.1.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:57 -0800 Received: from bn-scl-be03.Cudanet.local ([::1]) by bn-scl-be03.Cudanet.local ([::1]) with mapi; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:57 -0800 From: Michael Kjellman X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: ::1 To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" CC: "user@cassandra.apache.org" , "developers@cardspring.com" Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:55 -0800 Subject: Re: Incompatible Gossip 1.1.6 to 1.2.1 Upgrade? Thread-Topic: Incompatible Gossip 1.1.6 to 1.2.1 Upgrade? X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Incompatible Gossip 1.1.6 to 1.2.1 Upgrade? Thread-Index: Ac4Rp+zMixR06KqHSaiC2uo36sI2Sg== Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: bn-scl-fe05.cudanet.local[10.8.1.46] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1361611617 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://bsf02.barracuda.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: softfail (barracuda.com: domain of transitioning mkjellman@barracuda.com does not designate ::1 as permitted sender) X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at barracuda.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO, BSF_SPF_SOFTFAIL, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.123371 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.00 BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO Envelope rcpt doesn't match header 0.00 BSF_SPF_SOFTFAIL Custom Rule SPF Softfail X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org This was a bug with 1.2.0 but resolved in 1.2.1. Did you take a capture of = nodetool gossipinfo and nodetool ring by chance? On Feb 23, 2013, at 12:26 AM, "Arya Goudarzi" wrote: > Hi C* users, >=20 > I just upgrade a 12 node test cluster from 1.1.6 to 1.2.1. What I noticed= from nodetool ring was that the new upgraded nodes only saw each other as = Normal and the rest of the cluster which was on 1.1.6 as Down. Vise versa w= as true for the nodes running 1.1.6. They saw each other as Normal but the = 1.2.1 nodes as down. I don't see a note in upgrade docs that this would be = an issue. Has anyone else observed this problem?=20 >=20 > In the debug logs I could see messages saying attempting to connect to no= de IP and then saying it is down.=20 >=20 > Cheers, > -Arya Copy, by Barracuda, helps you store, protect, and share all your amazing=0D things. Start today: www.copy.com.