incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Best version to upgrade from 1.1.10 to 1.2.X
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:43:26 GMT
Hello,

During a rolling upgrade between 1.1.10 and 1.2.10, the newly upgrade nodes
keep showing the following log message:

 INFO [HANDSHAKE-/10.176.249.XX] 2013-10-03 17:36:16,948
OutboundTcpConnection.java (line 399) Handshaking version with
/10.176.249.XX
 INFO [HANDSHAKE-/10.176.182.YY] 2013-10-03 17:36:17,280
OutboundTcpConnection.java (line 408) Cannot handshake version with
/10.176.182.YY
 INFO [HANDSHAKE-/10.176.182.YY] 2013-10-03 17:36:17,280
OutboundTcpConnection.java (line 399) Handshaking version with
/10.176.182.YY
 INFO [HANDSHAKE-/10.188.13.ZZ] 2013-10-03 17:36:17,510
OutboundTcpConnection.java (line 408) Cannot handshake version with
/10.188.13.ZZ
 INFO [HANDSHAKE-/10.188.13.ZZ] 2013-10-03 17:36:17,511
OutboundTcpConnection.java (line 399) Handshaking version with /10.188.13.ZZ

Nodes XX, YY and ZZ are from the previous version (1.1.10). Is it expected
they can't handshake or is this a potential problem?

During reads to any cluster node they normally succeed, but sometimes I get
read timeout errors. Has anyone had a similar issue?

Cheers,

Paulo



2013/10/2 Paulo Motta <pauloricardomg@gmail.com>

> Nevermind the question. It was a firewall problem. Now the nodes between
> different versions are able to see ach other! =)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2013/10/2 Paulo Motta <pauloricardomg@gmail.com>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I just started the rolling upgrade procedure from 1.1.10 to 2.1.10. Our
>> strategy is to simultaneously upgrade one server from each replication
>> group. So, if we have a 6 nodes with RF=2, we will upgrade 3 nodes at a
>> time (from distinct replication groups).
>>
>> My question is: do the newly upgraded nodes show as "Down" in the
>> "nodetool ring" of the old cluster (1.1.10)? Because I thought that network
>> compatibility meant nodes from a newer version would receive traffic (write
>> + reads) from the previous version without problems.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paulo
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/26 Paulo Motta <pauloricardomg@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hello Charles,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your detailed upgrade report. It'll be very
>>> helpful during our upgrade operation (even though we'll do a rolling
>>> production upgrade).
>>>
>>> I'll also share our findings during the upgrade here.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Paulo
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/9/24 Charles Brophy <cbrophy@zulily.com>
>>>
>>>> Hi Paulo,
>>>>
>>>> I just completed a migration from 1.1.10 to 1.2.10 and it was
>>>> surprisingly painless.
>>>>
>>>> The course of action that I took:
>>>> 1) describe cluster - make sure all nodes are on the same schema
>>>> 2) shutoff all maintenance tasks; i.e. make sure no scheduled repair is
>>>> going to kick off in the middle of what you're doing
>>>> 3) snapshot - maybe not necessary but it's so quick it makes no sense
>>>> to skip this step
>>>> 4) drain the nodes - I shut down the entire cluster rather than chance
>>>> any incompatible gossip concerns that might come from a rolling upgrade.
I
>>>> have the luxury of controlling both the providers and consumers of our
>>>> data, so this wasn't so disruptive for us.
>>>> 5) Upgrade the nodes, turn them on one-by-one, monitor the logs for
>>>> funny business.
>>>> 6) nodetool upgradesstables
>>>> 7) Turn various maintenance tasks back on, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The worst part was managing the yaml/config changes between the
>>>> versions. It wasn't horrible, but the diff was "noisier" than a more
>>>> incremental upgrade typically is. A few things I recall that were special:
>>>> 1) Since you have an existing cluster, you'll probably need to set the
>>>> default partitioner back to RandomPartitioner in cassandra.yaml. I believe
>>>> that is outlined in NEWS.
>>>> 2) I set the initial tokens to be the same as what the nodes held
>>>> previously.
>>>> 3) The timeout is now divided into more atomic settings and you get to
>>>> decided how (or if) to configure it from the default appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> tldr; I did a standard upgrade and payed careful attention to the
>>>> NEWS.txt upgrade notices. I did a full cluster restart and NOT a rolling
>>>> upgrade. It went without a hitch.
>>>>
>>>> Charles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Paulo Motta <pauloricardomg@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cool, sounds fair enough. Thanks for the help, Rob!
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone has upgraded from 1.1.X to 1.2.X, please feel invited to
>>>>> share any tips on issues you're encountered that are not yet documented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Paulo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/9/24 Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Paulo Motta <
>>>>>> pauloricardomg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't the probability of something going wrong increases as
the
>>>>>>> gap between the versions increase? So, using this reasoning,
upgrading from
>>>>>>> 1.1.10 to 1.2.6 would have less chance of something going wrong
then from
>>>>>>> 1.1.10 to 1.2.9 or 1.2.10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorta, but sorta not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NEWS.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the canonical source of concerns on upgrade. There are a few cases
>>>>>> where upgrading to the "root" of X.Y.Z creates issues that do not
exist if
>>>>>> you upgrade to the "head" of that line. AFAIK there have been no
cases
>>>>>> where upgrading to the "head" of a line (where that line is mature,
like
>>>>>> 1.2.10) has created problems which would have been avoided by upgrading
to
>>>>>> the "root" first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping this reasoning is wrong and I can update directly
from
>>>>>>> 1.1.10 to 1.2.10. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I plan to do when we move to 1.2.X, FWIW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paulo Ricardo
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> European Master in Distributed Computing***
>>>>> Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
>>>>> *
>>>>> *Instituto Superior Técnico - IST*
>>>>> *http://paulormg.com*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paulo Ricardo
>>>
>>> --
>>> European Master in Distributed Computing***
>>> Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
>>> *
>>> *Instituto Superior Técnico - IST*
>>> *http://paulormg.com*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulo Ricardo
>>
>> --
>> European Master in Distributed Computing***
>> Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
>> *
>> *Instituto Superior Técnico - IST*
>> *http://paulormg.com*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Ricardo
>
> --
> European Master in Distributed Computing***
> Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
> *
> *Instituto Superior Técnico - IST*
> *http://paulormg.com*
>



-- 
Paulo Ricardo

-- 
European Master in Distributed Computing***
Royal Institute of Technology - KTH
*
*Instituto Superior Técnico - IST*
*http://paulormg.com*

Mime
View raw message