Re: 'no such object in table'

2015-08-26 Thread Nate McCall
> LOCAL_JMX=no > > if [ "$LOCAL_JMX" = "yes" ]; then > JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcassandra.jmx.local.port=$JMX_PORT > -XX:+DisableExplicitGC" > else > JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=$JMX_PORT" > JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.rmi.port=$JMX_PORT" > JV

Re: 'no such object in table'

2015-08-26 Thread Jason Lewis
All of my nodes have the same cassandra-env.sh. Only a few of them complain. LOCAL_JMX=no if [ "$LOCAL_JMX" = "yes" ]; then JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcassandra.jmx.local.port=$JMX_PORT -XX:+DisableExplicitGC" else JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.port=$JMX_PORT" JVM_OPTS="$JV

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread ibrahim El-sanosi
Thank you lot Ibrahim On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > Yes > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:05 PM, ibrahim El-sanosi < > ibrahimsaba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> OK. I see what the purpose of acknowledgment round here. So >> acknowledgment is optional here, depend o

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
Yes On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:05 PM, ibrahim El-sanosi wrote: > OK. I see what the purpose of acknowledgment round here. So > acknowledgment is optional here, depend on CL setting as we normally do in > Cassandra. > So we can say that acknowledgment is not really related to Paxos phase,

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread ibrahim El-sanosi
OK. I see what the purpose of acknowledgment round here. So acknowledgment is optional here, depend on CL setting as we normally do in Cassandra. So we can say that acknowledgment is not really related to Paxos phase, it depends on CL in Cassandra? Ibrahim On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, ibrahim El-sanosi < ibrahimsaba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, Sylvain, your answer makes more sense. The phase is in Paxos protocol > sometimes called learning or decide phase, BUT this phase does not have > acknowledgment round, just learning or decide message from

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread ibrahim El-sanosi
Yes, Sylvain, your answer makes more sense. The phase is in Paxos protocol sometimes called learning or decide phase, BUT this phase does not have acknowledgment round, just learning or decide message from the proposer to learners. So why we need acknowledgment round with commit phase in lightweigh

How to get the peer's IP address when writing failed

2015-08-26 Thread Lu, Boying
Hi, All, We have an Cassandra environment with two connected DCs and our consistency level of writing operation is EACH_QUORUM. So if one DC is down, the write will be failed and we get TokenRangeOfflineException on the client side (we use netfilix java client libraries). We want to give more

RE: PrepareStatement BUG

2015-08-26 Thread Peer, Oded
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7910 From: joseph gao [mailto:gaojf.bok...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:15 AM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: PrepareStatement BUG Hi, anybody knows how to resolve this problem? 2015-08-23 1:35 GMT+08:00 joseph gao

Re: lightweight transactions with potential problem?

2015-08-26 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
> By the way, I do not understand why in lightweight transactions in > Cassandra has round-trip commit/acknowledgment? > > For me, I think we can commit the value within phase propose/accept. Do > you agree? If not agree can you explain why we need commit/acknowledgment? > No, value cannot be comm