Improved DeletionTime serialization to reduce disk size

Hi all, DeletionTime.markedForDeleteAt is a long useconds since Unix Epoch. But I noticed that with 7 bytes we can already encode ~2284 years. We can either shed the 8th byte, for reduced IO and disk, or can encode some sentinel values (such as LIVE) as flags there. That would mean reading an

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

This would be a good addition and would make Cassandra more performant out of the box.DineshOn Jun 22, 2023, at 9:45 PM, Jordan West wrote:Glad to see there is support for this! I think ACCP would be a good choice since there seems to be a lot of experience deploying it. I’ve opened https://issue

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Glad to see there is support for this! I think ACCP would be a good choice since there seems to be a lot of experience deploying it. I’ve opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18624. I should have some time to work on the patch soon and I will try to provide some graphs that show t

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

We run ACCP in production on 1000s of nodes across Cassandra 3.11 and 4 with great results. Would love to see it baked into Cassandra. Jackson From: David Capwell Date: Friday, 23 June 2023 at 9:22 am To: dev Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default NetApp Security WARNING: T

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

+1 to ACCP > On Jun 22, 2023, at 3:05 PM, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > > +1 for ACCP and can attest to its results. ACCP also optimizes for a range of > hash functions and other cryptographic primitives beyond TLS acceleration for > Netty. > >> On Jun 22, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Being specific about JDK versions and python lib versions in CI

I like having the latest patch release always brought in for testing and CI for the JDK versions explicitly supported. So for this release, 11/17.On Jun 22, 2023, at 5:42 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: Yes.  -1 on forcing the patch release version, and possibly minor version, for anything that is

Re: [DISCUSS] Being specific about JDK versions and python lib versions in CI

Yes. -1 on forcing the patch release version, and possibly minor version, for anything that is not absolutely necessary to do so. Especially for things like Java or Python version, I would hope we just install the latest Java 8, Java 11, or Java 17 JDK for the platform the image is built from an

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

+1 for ACCP and can attest to its results. ACCP also optimizes for a range of hash functions and other cryptographic primitives beyond TLS acceleration for Netty.On Jun 22, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:Either would be better than today. On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:57 PM Jordan West wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Being specific about JDK versions and python lib versions in CI

Wouldn’t we recommend people to use the test images the project CI use? Thus using in testing the versions we use? I would assume the repeatable CI will still expect test images the way we have now? (I hope I did not misunderstand the question) I also share similar worries with Brandon On Thu, 22

Re: [DISCUSS] Being specific about JDK versions and python lib versions in CI

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 4:23 PM Josh McKenzie wrote: > > 2. Anyone concerned about us being specific about versions in > requirements.txt in the dtest repo? My concern with this is atrophy; we'll set the version once and when finally forced to update, find that a lot of other things must also be

[DISCUSS] Being specific about JDK versions and python lib versions in CI

Been working with Mick on CI and it dawned on me that we don't specify a specific required JDK version (major.minor.patch) for CI nor do we actually specify required python lib versions for many of the requirements in our dtests

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Either would be better than today. On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:57 PM Jordan West wrote: > Hi, > > I’m wondering if there is appetite to change the default SSL provider for > Cassandra going forward to either ACCP [1] or tc-native in Netty? Our > deployment as well as others I’m aware of make this

[DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Hi, I’m wondering if there is appetite to change the default SSL provider for Cassandra going forward to either ACCP [1] or tc-native in Netty? Our deployment as well as others I’m aware of make this change in their fork and it can lead to significant performance improvement. When recently qualify

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 33 - CIDR filtering authorizer

Hi Team, If no one has comments/questions regarding this feature, I would like to start voting thread on Monday. Thanks, Shailaja > On Jun 15, 2023, at 4:49 PM, Shailaja Koppu wrote: > > Adding [DISCUSS] to the subject. I request everyone here to please share your > thoughts/comments on th