Re: Gossip 2.0

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > have opened up CASSANDRA-12345... Nice; What did you do, camp on the "create" button until after 12344 was submitted? :) -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com

Re: Gossip 2.0

He denied it when I asked him that earlier. But we know he did. http://wilderness.apache.org/channels/?f=cassandra-dev/2016-09-01#1472732219 > On Sep 1, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Eric Evans wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 a

Gossip 2.0

Hi all, One of the problems I been thinking about for quite a while is how to improve the efficacy of cassandra's gossip, especially when dealing with large clusters (greater than 1,000 nodes). By reducing gossip overhead we can implement new features that require data to be disseminated cluster-w

Gossip Behavioral Difference between C* 2.0 and C* 2.1

Hi, We recently discovered that there are some differences in gossip behavior between C* 2.0 and C* 2.1. In some cases of network instability or a node reboot, we can observe some behavioral differences from Cassandra/system.log. 2.0.17 We can observe this log of similar pattern in log : DEBUG

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

[mailto:arodr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:01 PM To: u...@cassandra.apache.org Cc: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot Hi Michaels :-), My guess is this ticket will be closed with a "Won't Fix&q

Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

Hi Michaels :-), My guess is this ticket will be closed with a "Won't Fix" resolution. Cassandra 2.0 is no longer supported and I have seen tickets being rejected like CASSANDRA-10510 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10510> . Would you like to upgrade to 2.

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

kjell...@internalcircle.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:57 AM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Cc: u...@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot I'd recommend you create a JIRA! That way you can get some traction on the issue.

Re: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

Best regards, > > > Michael Fong > > From: Michael Fong [mailto:michael.f...@ruckuswireless.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:41 PM > To: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap > > Hi, all, >

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during startsup - schema version inconsistency after reboot

6:41 PM To: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap Hi, all, Here is some more information on before the OOM happened on the rebooted node in a 2-node test cluster: 1. It seems the schema version has changed on the rebooted node after reboo

RE: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap

.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:43 AM To: u...@cassandra.apache.org; dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap Hi, all, We have recently encountered a Cassandra OOM issue when Cassandra is brought up sometimes (but not always) in our 4-node cluster test b

Cassandra 2.0.x OOM during bootstrap

Hi, all, We have recently encountered a Cassandra OOM issue when Cassandra is brought up sometimes (but not always) in our 4-node cluster test bed. After analyzing the heap dump, we could find the Internal-Response thread pool (JMXEnabledThreadPoolExecutor) is filled with thounds of 'org.apach

Re: Modeling nested collection with C* 2.0

Ahmed, Just using text and serializing as Json is the easy way and a common approach. However, this list is for Cassandra commiter discussion, please be so kind as to use the regular user list for data modeling questions or for any future responses to this email thread. Regards, Ryan Svihla

Modeling nested collection with C* 2.0

​Hi, I need your help for modeling a nested collection with cassanrda2.0 (UDT no, no fozen) My users table contains emails by type, each type of email contains multiple emails. Example: Type: pro. emails: {a...@mail.com, b...@mail.com ...} Type: private. emails: {c...@mail.com, d...@mail.com} .

Committing to 2.0 and merging up without touching 2.1.0

Committers, Since we've had the 2.1.0 branch around a bit longer than we normally would this time around, we're starting to run into situations where we want to commit something to 2.0 and 2.1, but skip 2.1.0. Here's the process to correctly do that: First, commit to 2.0 (ob

Re: Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

Clint, I'm hoping that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201 will make it into Cassandra 2.0, as it is a general purpose solution that will work for both mapred, and mapreduce based code. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Clint Kelly wrote: > One other question: Ha

Re: Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

CqlPagingRecordReader code. Best regards, Clint On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Clint Kelly wrote: > Folks, > > Has anyone out there used Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x? I saw this > discussion on the Cassandra JIRA: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201 >

Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x?

Folks, Has anyone out there used Cassandra 2.0 with Hadoop 2.x? I saw this discussion on the Cassandra JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5201 but the fix (https://github.com/michaelsembwever/cassandra-hadoop) referenced in the thread is for Cassandra 1.2. I put

Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

Great. Thank you Tomaz. From: Tomaz Muraus To: dev@cassandra.apache.org; Emalayan Vairavanathan Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ? Check CHANGES file (https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/CHANGES.txt

Re: Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

w features that are going to come in > Cassandra 2.0 ? > > Thank you > Emalayan

Cassandra 2.0 new features ?

Hi All, Can anyone tell me about the new features that are going to come in Cassandra 2.0 ? Thank you Emalayan

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 Regards, On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which > wil

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 - Aaron Morton Freelance Cassandra Developer New Zealand @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 7/02/2013, at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of peop

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

Counter proposal java 8 and closures. Jk On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Carl Yeksigian wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > >> Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 >> comes out (July). Anecdotally, a

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which > will be

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Gary Dusbabek >>> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis >>> wrote: >>> >>> Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 >>>> comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on >>>> Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On 2/6/2013 9:13 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: +1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: +1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- Sylvain On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which >

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C*

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which > will be

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > > Java7 w

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which > will be moot if LZ4

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

few months on the Users list. I love the idea of requiring Java 7 explicitly + clarifying the project's stance on the JVM requirement overall. Might also want to lock it down to something like >Java 7 u8 (u13 might be even nicer given 2.0's timeframe) given the early instability in Java

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 On Feb 6, 2013 5:22 PM, "Jonathan Ellis" wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-X problem (which > will be m

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- AY On Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 01:24 AM, Pavel Yaskevich wrote: > +1 > > -- > Pavel Yaskevich > > > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > &

Re: Proposal: require Java7 for Cassandra 2.0

+1 -- Pavel Yaskevich On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Java 6 EOL is this month. Java 7 will be two years old when C* 2.0 > comes out (July). Anecdotally, a bunch of people are running C* on > Java7 with no issues, except for the Snappy-on-OS-

Re: 2.0

With no objections I have renamed 1.3 to 2.0 in JIRA. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I think we should call 1.2-next, > 2.0. I'd like to spend some time paying off our technical debt: > > - replace supercolumn

Re: 2.0

ons, but we probably wouldn't have dreamt up a new client > interface/protocol if we went planning, at some point, on retiring the old > one. And, also, I missed the Avro debate from the past, so I'm not sure how > much that affects current and future thinking. > > After raisin

Re: 2.0

ising the issue here on the dev list, it certainly seems like 2.0 is premature for a full-on switch over, and Ed raised some interesting metrics to consider when we could declare the CQL protocol as 'accepted'. I'm curious as to how you are seeing it roll out. Thanks for your tim

Re: 2.0

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote: > I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing > thrift. I'm -1 on removing thrift, and by my count, that would put us at -3 binding if it ever came to vote, so let's consider this proposition closed and move on to

Re: 2.0

s not dead. The glory of > avro never came true because it really did not work for clients outside a > few languages. Cql and the binary transport has to pass this same litmus > test. Let it gain momentum and have rock solid clients for 5 languages and > have higher level tools writt

Re: 2.0

nsport has to pass this same litmus test. Let it gain momentum and have rock solid clients for 5 languages and have higher level tools written on top of it then its easy to say thrift is not needed anymore. On Saturday, December 1, 2012, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > I agree on 2.0. > >

Re: 2.0

I agree on 2.0. For the thrift part, we've said clearly that we wouldn't remove it any time soon so let's stick to that. Besides, I would agree it's too soon anyway. What we can do however in the relatively short term on that front, is to pull thrift in it's own jar

Re: 2.0

off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if > > there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in > > 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast > > it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump

Re: 2.0

tions (which is virtually everyone) on 1.2. On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jason Brown wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible&#

Re: 2.0

+1 Regards, On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I think we should call 1.2-next, > 2.0. I'd like to spend some time paying off our technical debt: > > - replace supercolumns with composites (CASSANDRA-3237) >

Re: 2.0

My hope is that after 1.2 (i.e. by the time we're 2.0'ing), the binary CQL protocol is out of beta :). On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote: > Good idea. Lets remove thrift, CQL3 is still beta, but I am willing to > upgrade to a version that removes thrift. T

Re: 2.0

;m in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if > there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in > 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast > it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems

Re: 2.0

avor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if > there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in > 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast > it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a

Re: 2.0

Hi Jonathan, I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently in 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively cast it off and push the binary CQL protocol?