Usually, it’s a good practice to resemble the real datacenter in the Cassandra
topology, thus nodes mounted to distinct racks are know with different rack
names to Cassandra. This is due to the usual datacenter infrastructure, having
a single point of failure in each rack - e.g. a network switch
I just want to mention that the "rack" in Cassandra don't need to match
the physical rack. As long as each "rack" in Cassandra fails independent
of each other, it is fine.
That means if you have 6 physical servers each in an unique physical
rack and Cassandra RF=3, you can have any of the foll
As long as the number of racks is already at/above the number of nodes /
replication factor, it's gonna be fine.
Where it tends to surprise people is if you have RF=3 and either 1 or 2
racks, and then you add a third, that third rack gets one copy of "all" of
the data, so you often run out of disk
I have a 3 node cluster using the GossipingPropertyFileSnitch and
replication factor of 3. All nodes are leased hardware and more or less the
same. The cassandra-rackdc.properties files look like this:
dc=dc1
rack=rack1
(rack2 and rack3 for the other nodes)
Now I need to expand the cluster. I was
