That might be all true, I am just trying to figure out what are the implications of having both at the same time. Simply put, like, you will be able to turn on each at the same time? Or just one at a time? What happens when it is mixed? Is that not just too complex to admin? That is a lot of "rate limiting" configuration at once to my taste. Each solution would have its own set of configurations, I guess. Who is going to test how it works together and what consequences it has? Less configuration and more "dumb" the better.
But hey, maybe this looks all fine for folks and the complexity of having two rate limiting concepts at once is not a problem ... On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:15 PM Bernardo Botella <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for pointing this out Stefan! > > I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as > complementary rather than competing. > > I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a > flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to > meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for > 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could > provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or > if system signals show distress. > > That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in > parallel. > > On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts: > - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide > quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path > forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do > around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to > gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide > quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP > delivery. > - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives > section on the CEP. > > Really curious on what others think! > Bernardo > > > > > On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing > > proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed > > with the better one or pick the best approaches from both. > > > > (1) > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal > >> here: > >> [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. > >> I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community. > >> > >> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote: > >>> Hi everyone: > >>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: > >>> Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design > >>> document here: > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf > >>> you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a > >>> thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I > >>> will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and > >>> subsequently submit a PR. > >>> Looking forward to your feedback! > >>> > >>> -------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Justin Ling Mao > >>> Beijing,China > >>> >
