We're also seeing something similar since upgrading to 1.0.0.
We have a 6-node cluster with replication factor of 3, but three of the
nodes are older running 32-bit Windows Server 2008, and three of the nodes
are newer and running 64-bit Windows Server 2008 R2, and we're running
32-bit java on the
You're right, that is in 1.0.0. Don't know what the OP is seeing, then.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Jeremiah Jordan
wrote:
> I thought this patch made it into the 1.0 release? I remember it being
> referenced in one of the re-rolls.
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:56 PM, "Jonathan Ellis" wro
I thought this patch made it into the 1.0 release? I remember it being
referenced in one of the re-rolls.
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:56 PM, "Jonathan Ellis" wrote:
> That looks to me like it's reporting uncompressed size as the load.
> Should be fixed in the 1.0 branch for 1.0.1.
> (https://issues
That looks to me like it's reporting uncompressed size as the load.
Should be fixed in the 1.0 branch for 1.0.1.
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3338)
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Dan Hendry wrote:
> I have been playing around with Cassandra 1.0.0 in our test environment it
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Dan Hendry wrote:
> I have been playing around with Cassandra 1.0.0 in our test environment it
> seems pretty sweet so far. I have however come across what appears to be a
> bug tracking node load. I have enabled compression and levelled compaction
> on all CFs (s
I have been playing around with Cassandra 1.0.0 in our test environment it
seems pretty sweet so far. I have however come across what appears to be a
bug tracking node load. I have enabled compression and levelled compaction
on all CFs (scrub + snapshot deletion) and the nodes have been operating
