Yes, although "forget" implies that we once knew we were supposed to do so. Given the following before-and-after states, on which nodes are we supposed to run repair? Should the cluster be restarted? Is there anything else we should be doing, or not doing?
1. Node is down due to hardware failure 192.168.1.104 Up 111.75 GB 8954799129498380617457226511362321354 | ^ 192.168.1.106 Up 113.25 GB 17909598258996761234914453022724642708 v | 192.168.1.107 Up 75.65 GB 22386997823745951543643066278405803385 | ^ 192.168.1.108 Down 75.77 GB 26864397388495141852371679534086964062 v | 192.168.1.109 Up 76.14 GB 35819196517993522469828906045449285416 | ^ 192.168.1.110 Up 75.9 GB 40296596082742712778557519301130446093 v | 192.168.1.111 Up 95.21 GB 49251395212241093396014745812492767447 | ^ 2. nodetool removetoken 26864397388495141852371679534086964062 192.168.1.104 Up 111.75 GB 8954799129498380617457226511362321354 | ^ 192.168.1.106 Up 113.25 GB 17909598258996761234914453022724642708 v | 192.168.1.107 Up 75.65 GB 22386997823745951543643066278405803385 | ^ 192.168.1.109 Up 76.14 GB 35819196517993522469828906045449285416 | ^ 192.168.1.110 Up 75.9 GB 40296596082742712778557519301130446093 v | 192.168.1.111 Up 95.21 GB 49251395212241093396014745812492767447 | ^ At this point we're expecting 192.168.1.107 to pick up the slack for the removed token, and for 192.168.1.109 and/or 192.168.1.110 to start streaming data to 192.168.1.107 since they are holding the replicated data for that range. 3. nodetool repair ? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Benjamin Black <b...@b3k.us> wrote: > Did you forget to run repair? > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk <jo...@openplaces.org> > wrote: > > I believe we did nodetool removetoken on nodes that were already down > (due > > to hardware failure), but I will check to make sure. We're running > Cassandra > > 0.6.2. > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk <jo...@openplaces.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Greg, can you describe the steps we took to decommission the nodes? > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Rob Coli <rc...@digg.com> > >> Date: Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM > >> Subject: Re: get_range_slices confused about token ranges after > >> decommissioning a node > >> To: user@cassandra.apache.org > >> > >> > >> On 6/21/10 4:57 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk wrote: > >>> > >>> We're seeing very strange behaviour after decommissioning a node: when > >>> requesting a get_range_slices with a KeyRange by token, we are getting > >>> back tokens that are out of range. > >> > >> What sequence of actions did you take to "decommission" the node? What > >> version of Cassandra are you running? > >> > >> =Rob > >> > > > > >
