I think your question is "NY is the archive, after a certain amount of time we
want to delete the row from the original DC but keep it in the archive in NY."
Once you delete a row, it's deleted as far as the client is concerned.
GCGaceSeconds is only concerned with when the tombstone marker can be removed.
If NY has a replica of a row from Tokyo and the row is deleted in either DC, it
will be deleted in the other DC as well.
Some thoughts...
1) Add more storage in the satellite DC's, then tilt you chair to celebrate a
job well done :)
2) Run two clusters as you say.
3) Just thinking out loud, and I know this does not work now. Would it be
possible to support per CF strategy options, so an archive CF only replicates
to NY ? Can think of possible problems with repair and LOCAL_QUORUM, out of
interest what else would it break?
Hope that helps.
Aaron
On 14 Apr 2011, at 10:17, Patrick Julien wrote:
> We have been successful in implementing, at scale, the comments you
> posted here. I'm wondering what we can do about deleting data
> however.
>
> The way I see it, we have considerably more storage capacity in NY,
> but not in the other sites. Using this technique here, it occurs to
> me that we would replicate non-NY deleted rows back to NY. Is there a
> way to tell NY not to tombstone rows?
>
> The ideas I have so far:
>
> - Set GCGracePeriod to be much higher in NY than in the other sites.
> This way we can get to tombstone'd rows well beyond their disk life in
> other sites.
> - A variant on this solution is to set the TTL on rows in non NY sites
> and again, set the GCGracePeriod to be considerably higher in NY
> - break this up to multiple clusters and do one write from the client
> to the its 'local' cluster and one write to the NY cluster.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, I'm suggesting you have a Tokyo keyspace that gets replicated as
>> {Tokyo: 2, NYC:1}, a London keyspace that gets replicated to {London:
>> 2, NYC: 1}, for example.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Patrick Julien <pjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm familiar with this material. I hadn't thought of it from this
>>> angle but I believe what you're suggesting is that the different data
>>> centers would hold a different properties file for node discovery
>>> instead of using auto-discovery.
>>>
>>> So Tokyo, and others, would have a configuration that make it
>>> oblivious to the non New York data centers.
>>> New York would have a configuration that would give it knowledge of no
>>> other data center.
>>>
>>> Would that work? Wouldn't the NY data center wonder where these other
>>> writes are coming from?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Julien <pjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The problem is this: we would like the historical data from Tokyo to
>>>>> stay in Tokyo and only be replicated to New York. The one in London
>>>>> to be in London and only be replicated to New York and so on for all
>>>>> data centers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this currently possible with Cassandra? I believe we would need to
>>>>> run multiple clusters and migrate data manually from data centers to
>>>>> North America to achieve this. Also, any suggestions would also be
>>>>> welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> NetworkTopologyStrategy allows configuration replicas per-keyspace,
>>>> per-datacenter:
>>>> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/deploying-cassandra-across-multiple-data-centers
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Ellis
>>>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>>>> co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support
>>>> http://www.datastax.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>> co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support
>> http://www.datastax.com
>>
