From user-return-36291-apmail-cassandra-user-archive=cassandra.apache.org@cassandra.apache.org Mon Sep 2 15:05:20 2013 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 36F23104BA for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 15:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60474 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2013 15:05:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 60270 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2013 15:05:17 -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 60257 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2013 15:05:16 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:05:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jeremiah.jordan@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.176] (HELO mail-ie0-f176.google.com) (209.85.223.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:05:09 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s9so7867341iec.7 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=OfhVoDij+BkKJbQgYXpeCjsGqf6c7iNYQNAGzBSTKCw=; b=m69NyzdKe/mmosnJ9aZVI3wg1L2SucdhykIPtPkQn9pUxQlMCodJHW9miBvW7yuvbm RJdR1Ol2kh2loqbIQ5K0pb7nGebGLU3wGySKyNn0debtv08dJ5ri6rWsLV5XMylD4xu7 KksWk5cWN9G7XTeOhOhR9K0s22azuICtA6bF7EPL4wQV+VLG8IpPH+r3DsP9sV5xGR3g xY+Aq235ZZcyzFCdJLKeEzPZSVVbj/gJLpo1+uJVqKuZzKFT0h9dTpwIlvenhPTlfXCK f+6peSEL95+qg4mAmxuOjKYI+mz84HOnVcKwS/N0EmwzbljcYbHg0PNwAWKQ7dlJO7A3 9zmw== X-Received: by 10.50.49.65 with SMTP id s1mr12360876ign.43.1378134288966; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.10] (c-71-201-190-179.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [71.201.190.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p5sm17696234igj.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeremiah D Jordan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DCE26610-C9C7-4A14-936F-A17E26B60F9E" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: Upgrade from 1.0.9 to 1.2.8 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:04:47 -0500 References: <5220C0D5.3030302@liquidweb.com> <5220CB30.1040904@liquidweb.com> <5220EBB2.9040808@liquidweb.com> To: user@cassandra.apache.org In-Reply-To: <5220EBB2.9040808@liquidweb.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail=_DCE26610-C9C7-4A14-936F-A17E26B60F9E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x? Because this fix in 1.0.11: * fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes >=3D 1.1 = (CASSANDRA-4195) -Jeremiah On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Mike Neir wrote: > Is there anything that you can link that describes the pitfalls you = mention? I'd like a bit more information. Just for clarity's sake, are = you recommending 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x? Or would 1.0.9 -> = 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x suffice? >=20 > Regarding the placement strategy mentioned in a different post, I'm = using the Simple placement strategy, with the RackInferringSnitch. How = does that play into the bugs mentioned previously about cross-DC = replication? >=20 > MN >=20 > On 08/30/2013 01:28 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: >> You probably want to go to 1.0.11/12 first no matter what. If you = want the least chance of issue you should then go to 1.1.12. While = there is a high probability that going from 1.0.X->1.2 will work. You = have the best chance at no failures if you go through 1.1.12. There are = some edge cases that can cause errors if you don't do that. >>=20 >> -Jeremiah >>=20 >>=20 --Apple-Mail=_DCE26610-C9C7-4A14-936F-A17E26B60F9E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> = 1.2.x?
Because this fix in = 1.0.11:
* fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes = >=3D 1.1 = (CASSANDRA-4195)

-Jeremiah

<= div>On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Mike Neir <mike@liquidweb.com> = wrote:

Is there anything that you can link that describes the = pitfalls you mention? I'd like a bit more information. Just for = clarity's sake, are you recommending 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 = -> 1.2.x? Or would  1.0.9 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x = suffice?

Regarding the placement strategy mentioned in a = different post, I'm using the Simple placement strategy, with the = RackInferringSnitch. How does that play into the bugs mentioned = previously about cross-DC replication?

MN

On 08/30/2013 = 01:28 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote:
You = probably want to go to 1.0.11/12 first no matter what.  If you want = the least chance of issue you should then go to 1.1.12.  While = there is a high probability that going from 1.0.X->1.2 will work. You = have the best chance at no failures if you go through 1.1.12. =  There are some edge cases that can cause errors if you don't do = that.

-Jeremiah



= --Apple-Mail=_DCE26610-C9C7-4A14-936F-A17E26B60F9E--