Repairing the range is an expensive operation and don't forget--just
because a node is down does not mean it's dead. I take nodes down for
maintenance all the time--maybe there was a security update that needed to
be applied, for example, or perhaps a kernel update. There are a multitude
of reaso
>
> Thanks Mongo maven:)
> I understand why you need to to do this.
My question was more from the architecture point if view. Why doesn't
> Cassandra just redistribute the data? Is it because of the gossip protocol?
Sure.. well I've attempted to launch new nodes to redistribute the data on
a tem
Thanks Mongo maven:)
I understand why you need to to do this.
My question was more from the architecture point if view. Why doesn't Cassandra
just redistribute the data? Is it because of the gossip protocol?
Thanks,
Prem
On 3 Jun 2014, at 17:35, Curious Patient wrote:
>> Assuming replication
>
> Assuming replication factor is >2, if a node dies, why does it matter? If
> we add a new node is added, shouldn't it just take the chunk of data it
> server as the "primary" node from the other existing nodes.
> Why do we need to worry about replacing the dead node?
The reason this matters is
A dead node is still allocated key ranges, and Cassandra will wait for it
to come back online rather than redistributing its data. It needs to be
decommissioned or replaced by a new node for it to be truly dead as far as
the cluster is concerned.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Prem Yadav wrote
Hi,
in the last week week, we saw at least two emails about dead node
replacement. Though I saw the documentation about how to do this, i am not
sure I understand why this is required.
Assuming replication factor is >2, if a node dies, why does it matter? If
we add a new node is added, shouldn't
