Forgot to mention, you want to check the following in cassandra.yaml on the node that you bootstrap before you initiate the bootstrap:

* Ensure that the initial_token is set to the correct value (see nodetool)
* Ensure that the seeds list doesn't contain the IP of the node you are trying to bootstrap

Cheers,

        T.

On 15/08/11 09:16, Teijo Holzer wrote:
Hi,

I took the following steps to get a node that refused to repair back under
control.

WARNING: This resulted in some data loss for us, YMMV with your replication 
factor

* Turn off all row & key caches via cassandra-cli
* Set "disk_access_mode: standard" in cassandra.yaml
* Kill Cassandra on problematic node
* Move the data, commitlog & keycaches directories on problematic node away
* Change "auto_bootstrap: true" in cassandra.yaml on problematic node only
* Start problematic node and wait for bootstrap to finish (see log/nodetool)
* Change back "auto_bootstrap: false" in cassandra.yaml on problematic node only
* Run repair on problematic node, then on all other nodes (rolling, see log)
* Run major compaction on problematic node, then on all other nodes (rolling)
* Revert all the config changes from above (if desired)
* Restart all nodes (rolling)

Cheers,

T.




On 15/08/11 05:30, Philippe wrote:
No it depends on the consistency level. It's different : for example, QUORUM =
2 for RF=3

Anyway, anyone have an answer to my real issue ?

Thanks
2011/8/14 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
<mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>>

oh i know you can run rf 3 on a 3 node cluster. more i thought that if you
have one fail you have less nodes than the rf, so the cluster is at less
than rf, and writes might be disabled or something like that, while at 4
you still have met the rf...

- Stephen

---
Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense
words and other nonsense are a direct result of using swype to type on the
screen

On 14 Aug 2011 16:08, "Peter Schuller" <peter.schul...@infidyne.com
<mailto:peter.schul...@infidyne.com>> wrote:




Reply via email to