nactive SSTables and some bug exposed itself
>> and marked them as active? What are the possibilities that could lead to
>> this? I am eager to find our as this is blocking our upgrade.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:11 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> This obscure feature of
gt;> and marked them as active? What are the possibilities that could lead to
>>> this? I am eager to find our as this is blocking our upgrade.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:11 AM, wrote:
>>> This obscure feature of Cassandra is called “haunted handoff”.
>>>
? I am eager to find our as this is blocking our upgrade.
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:11 AM, wrote:
>
>> This obscure feature of Cassandra is called “haunted handoff”.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Happy (early) April Fools J****
>>
>> ** **
Happy (early) April Fools J
>>
>>
>>
>> From: aaron morton [mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:45 PM
>> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lots of Deleted Rows Came back after upgrade 1.1.6 to 1.1.10
>>
>>
April Fools J
>
>
>
> From: aaron morton [mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:45 PM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lots of Deleted Rows Came back after upgrade 1.1.6 to 1.1.10
>
>
>
> As you see, this node thin
ted handoff”.
>
> ** **
>
> Happy (early) April Fools J
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* aaron morton [mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2013 7:45 PM
> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Lots of Deleted Rows Came
This obscure feature of Cassandra is called "haunted handoff".
Happy (early) April Fools :)
From: aaron morton [mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:45 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lots of Deleted Rows Came back after upgrade 1.1.6 to 1.1.10
Hi Aaron:
Thanks for your attention.
The cluster in question is a 4 node sandbox cluster we have that does not
have much traffic. I was able to chase down this issue on a CF that doesn't
change much.
That bug was flagged as fixed on 1.1.10.
They were row level deletes.
We use the nanosecond pr
> As you see, this node thinks lots of ranges are out of sync which shouldn't
> be the case as successful repairs where done every night prior to the
> upgrade.
Could this be explained by writes occurring during the upgrade process ?
> I found this bug which touches timestamp and tomstones whi
Hi,
I have upgraded our test cluster from 1.1.6 to 1.1.10. Followed by running
repairs. It appears that the repair task that I executed after upgrade,
brought back lots of deleted rows into life. Here are some logistics:
- The upgraded cluster started from 1.1.1 -> 1.1.2 -> 1.1.5 -> 1.1.6
- Old c
10 matches
Mail list logo