On Apr 20, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>
>>
>> Those were just given as examples. Each would be discussed on its own,
>> assuming we are able to find a way to cooperate.
>>
>>
>> These are relatively simple and it wouldn't be hard for use to patch
>> Cassandra. But I want to
> The drivers are not part of Cassandra, so what "the server" is for drivers is
> up to their maintainer.
I'm pretty sure the driver communities don't spend a lot of time
worrying about their Scylla compatibility. That's your cross to bear.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Ariel Weisberg wrote
Hi,
> This doesn't work without additional changes, for RF>1. The token ring could
> place two replicas of the same token range on the same physical server, even
> though those are two separate cores of the same server. You could add another
> element to the hierarchy (cluster -> datacenter ->
On 2018-04-19 21:15, Ben Bromhead wrote:
Re #3:
Yup I was thinking each shard/port would appear as a discrete server to the
client.
This doesn't work without additional changes, for RF>1. The token ring
could place two replicas of the same token range on the same physical
server, even thou
You're right in principle, but in practice we haven't seen problems with
the term.
On 2018-04-19 20:31, Michael Shuler wrote:
This is purely my own opinion, but I find the use of the term 'shard'
quite unfortunate in the context of a distributed database. The
historical usage of the term has b
On 2018-04-20 12:03, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
Those were just given as examples. Each would be discussed on its own,
assuming we are able to find a way to cooperate.
These are relatively simple and it wouldn't be hard for use to patch
Cassandra. But I want to find a way to make more complicat
On 2018-04-19 20:43, Ariel Weisberg wrote:
Hi,
So at technical level I don't understand this yet.
So you have a database consisting of single threaded shards and a socket for
accept that is generating TCP connections and in advance you don't know which
connection is going to send messages t
On 2018-04-19 20:33, Ariel Weisberg wrote:
Hi,
That basically means a fork in the protocol (perhaps a temporary fork if
we go for mode 2 where Cassandra retroactively adopts our protocol
changes, if they fit will).
Implementing a protocol change may be easy for some simple changes, but
in th
