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 Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:01:48 GMT
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*

Mime
View raw message