That sounds like a possibility to me on the surface.

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 8:42 AM Paul Chandler <p...@redshots.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> That sounds good. Will that fix be in 4.1, as it is the old nodes that don’t 
> transmit the hints?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> > On 20 Dec 2024, at 13:41, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think after a discussion on #cassandra-dev yesterday, we are going
> > to remove the requirement for schema agreement to deliver hints, as
> > suggested by Jeff Jirsa.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Brandon
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 7:43 AM Paul Chandler <p...@redshots.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brandon,
> >>
> >> I am not sure which part changes after CASSANDRA-20118, there is still the 
> >> system mismatch going to CASSANDRA_4 caused by the change in 
> >> system.compaction_history, and going to UPGRADING, this is caused by the 2 
> >> different sstable formats, so nothing that CASSANDRA-20118 fixes.
> >>
> >> So while CASSANDRA-20118 improves things, it does not fix these specific 
> >> issues, unless I have missed something?
> >>
> >>> On 19 Dec 2024, at 12:17, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 4:11 AM Paul Chandler <p...@redshots.com> wrote:
> >>>> C*4 -> CASSANDRA_4 : There is a schema mismatch, and hints are not sent 
> >>>> from C*4 node to C*5 nodes.
> >>>> CASSANDRA_4 -> UPGRADING: Repairs are not possible and Nodes cannot be 
> >>>> added or replaced.
> >>>> UPGRADING-> NONE: No issues.
> >>>
> >>> I'll note this will change after CASSANDRA-20118
> >>>
> >>>> Any thoughts on whether having SCM controlled by JMX/nodetool is a good 
> >>>> idea?
> >>>
> >>> I think it's a good idea but it's tricky.  As I said on 20118, "An
> >>> unfortunate consequence of our use of static initialization is that
> >>> once started, there is no way to change storage compatibility modes"
> >>> and all the columns are defined statically, so that will have to be
> >>> overcome.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards,
> >>> Brandon
> >>
>

Reply via email to