[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21010?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ariel Weisberg updated CASSANDRA-21010:
---------------------------------------
Description:
The original process for enabling/disabling witnesses was that enabling them
entailed changing the schema and then running nodetool cleanup. I believe this
is still the case.
The original process for disabling witnesses is reduce the number of witnesses
to 0 and then increase the number of full replicas. With say 6 replicas total
and only 4 full replicas this means f will be 1 in terms of availability. In
terms of write durability since quorum will be 3/4 you can still lose 2 nodes
without losing any writes. This may be undesirable, but fine. If you ran RF=5
(or had only 3 full replicas) write durability would only allow for 1 lost
replica which is more problematic. You would also immediately lose availability
with only 3 full replicas and 3 witnesses when you attempted to disable the
witnesses.
The code that documents this is:
{code:java|title=AlterKeyspaceStatement.java}
//This is true right now because the transition from transient -> full
lacks the pending state
//necessary for correctness. What would happen if we allowed this is
that we would attempt
//to read from a transient replica as if it were a full replica.
if (oldFull > newFull && oldTrans > 0)
throw new ConfigurationException("Can't add full replicas if there
are any transient replicas. You must first remove all transient replicas, then
change the # of full replicas, then add back the transient replicas");
{code}
It would be more optimal to have a pending state for witnesses and then add
them back to the read data placement when repair completes.
was:
The original process for enabling/disabling witnesses was that enabling them
entailed changing the schema and then running nodetool cleanup. I believe this
is still the case.
The original process for disabling witnesses is reduce the number of witnesses
to 0 and then increase the number of full replicas. With say 6 replicas total
and only 4 full replicas this means f will be 1 in terms of availability. In
terms of write durability since quorum will be 3/4 you can still lose 2 nodes
without losing any writes. This may be undesirable, but fine. If you ran RF=5
(or had only 3 full replicas) write durability would only allow for 1 lost
replica which is more problematic. You would also immediately lose availability
with only 3 full replicas and 3 witnesses when you attempted to disable the
witnesses.
The code that documents this is in {{AlterKeyspaceStatement}}:
{code:java}
//This is true right now because the transition from transient -> full
lacks the pending state
//necessary for correctness. What would happen if we allowed this is
that we would attempt
//to read from a transient replica as if it were a full replica.
if (oldFull > newFull && oldTrans > 0)
throw new ConfigurationException("Can't add full replicas if there
are any transient replicas. You must first remove all transient replicas, then
change the # of full replicas, then add back the transient replicas");
{code}
It would be more optimal to have a pending state for witnesses and then add
them back to the read data placement when repair completes.
> CEP-46: Witness enable/disable implementation, testing, documentation
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-21010
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21010
> Project: Apache Cassandra
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Ariel Weisberg
> Priority: Normal
>
> The original process for enabling/disabling witnesses was that enabling them
> entailed changing the schema and then running nodetool cleanup. I believe
> this is still the case.
> The original process for disabling witnesses is reduce the number of
> witnesses to 0 and then increase the number of full replicas. With say 6
> replicas total and only 4 full replicas this means f will be 1 in terms of
> availability. In terms of write durability since quorum will be 3/4 you can
> still lose 2 nodes without losing any writes. This may be undesirable, but
> fine. If you ran RF=5 (or had only 3 full replicas) write durability would
> only allow for 1 lost replica which is more problematic. You would also
> immediately lose availability with only 3 full replicas and 3 witnesses when
> you attempted to disable the witnesses.
> The code that documents this is:
> {code:java|title=AlterKeyspaceStatement.java}
> //This is true right now because the transition from transient -> full
> lacks the pending state
> //necessary for correctness. What would happen if we allowed this is
> that we would attempt
> //to read from a transient replica as if it were a full replica.
> if (oldFull > newFull && oldTrans > 0)
> throw new ConfigurationException("Can't add full replicas if there
> are any transient replicas. You must first remove all transient replicas,
> then change the # of full replicas, then add back the transient replicas");
> {code}
> It would be more optimal to have a pending state for witnesses and then add
> them back to the read data placement when repair completes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
