I agree with Benedict, there's legit use cases for both the flat and
structured config file format. The operator should be able to choose
which one is best suited for their own use case. It will also make the
upgrade process easier if both formats are supported by future versions
of Cassandra.
On 23/02/2022 07:52, bened...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a new configuration layout should be introduced once
only, not incrementally.
However, I disagree that we should immediately deprecate the old
config file and refuse to parse it. We can maintain compatibility
indefinitely at low cost, so we should do so.
Users of the old format, when using new configuration options, can
simply use dot separators to specify them. Since most settings are not
required, this is by far the least painful upgrade process.
*From: *Berenguer Blasi <berenguerbl...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 06:53
*To: *dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org>
*Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a
nested structure around major database concepts
+1 to a non-incremental approach as well.
On 23/2/22 1:27, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:
> @Patrick I’m absolutely intending for this to be a 5.0 concern. The
only reason why it would have any bearing on 4.x is the case where
we’re adding new config that could fit into the v2 structure now and
not require any later changes.
>
>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Bernardo Sanchez
<bernard...@pointclickcare.com> wrote:
>>
>> unsubscribe
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stefan Miklosovic <stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:53 PM
>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a
nested structure around major database concepts
>>
>> "EXTERNAL EMAIL" - This email originated from outside of the
organization. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe. If you are unsure, please
contact hel...@pointclickcare.com.
>>
>> I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have
dtests in Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is
what Ekaterina was doing - supporting old configuration while
introducing new one. If we make "a big cut" and old way of doing
things would not be possible, how are we going to treat this in dtests
when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs and 5 on new configs?
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic
<stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to what Patrick says.
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin
<pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of
this scale on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
>>>>
>>>> With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new
config files and reject old config files. If any of you went through
the config file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much
of a lifesaver that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total
upgrade to a new major version, not a radical change inside of a dot
version, and make it a clean break. No "legacy config" laying around.
That's just a recipe for surprises later if there are new required
config values and somebody doesn't even realize they have some old 4.x
yaml files laying around.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási
<tibor.rep...@anzix.org> wrote:
>>>>> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not
necessary to change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The
value of the version element could default to 1 in the first phase,
which does not need any change for legacy format configuration. New
config format must include version: 2. When in some later version the
support for legacy configuration is removed, the default for the
version element could be changed to 2 or removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe
<calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and
#4. We could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to
the YAML that would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat
within a given file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for enumerating these!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási
<tibor.rep...@anzix.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as
an operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change
the config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling
upgrade? My thoughts on this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files.
Cassandra will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new
one otherwise. May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>>>>>> pros:
>>>>>> - separate files for separate formats
>>>>>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
>>>>>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from
PropertyFileSnitch to GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>>>>>> cons:
>>>>>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml
to something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
>>>>>> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
>>>>>> - format translation not solved
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to
convert legacy format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy
config is found, the upgrade process should convert the config file to
the new format.
>>>>>> pros:
>>>>>> - seamless upgrade process
>>>>>> - tool can be tested properly before
>>>>>> cons:
>>>>>> - may interact badly with configuration management tools
controlling the contents of cassandra.yaml
>>>>>> - poor transparency for operators
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when
legacy format found.
>>>>>> pros:
>>>>>> - no filename change
>>>>>> - operator controlled switch to new format
>>>>>> cons:
>>>>>> - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>>>>>> - format translation not solved
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the
configuration the Cassandra node is currently running with, with
filtering option to suppress default settings.
>>>>>> pros:
>>>>>> - such a nodetool command would be useful independently
from changing the config format, could be added before and support any
format
>>>>>> - the bare information is already available in
system_views.settings
>>>>>> - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format
translation
>>>>>> cons: ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tibor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe
<calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There has already been some Slack discussion around this, but
for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby more
widely for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292 to eventually move
cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposal itself is here, and there has already been some
inline discussion, but feel free to drop any feedback there, in the
Jira, or here, depending on what you're most comfortable with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention
of pushing to adopt any of this for existing config in that release.
However, what I think would be nice is if we could come to a rough
consensus in time to inform work on new parameters, like those we're
planning to add in CASSANDRA-17188.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> No PHI in Email: PointClickCare and Collective Medical, A
PointClickCare Company, policies prohibit sending protected health
information (PHI) by email, which may violate regulatory requirements.
If sending PHI is necessary, please contact the sender for secure
delivery instructions.
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message.
