Hi, I will wait until this is fixed beforeI upgrade, just to be sure.
Shall I open a new ticket for this issue? Thanks, Thibaut On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com> wrote: > This looks like an artifact of the way ownership is calculated for the OOP. > See https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-0.8.4/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/dht/OrderPreservingPartitioner.java#L177 it > was changed in this ticket > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2800 > The change applied in CASSANDRA-2800 was not applied to the > AbstractByteOrderPartitioner. Looks like it should have been. I'll chase > that up. > > When each node calculates the ownership for the token ranges (for OOP and > BOP) it's based on the number of keys the node has in that range. As there > is no way for the OOP to understand the range of values the keys may take. > If you look at the 192 node it's showing ownership most with 192, 191 and > 190 - so i'm assuming RF3 and 192 also has data from the ranges owned by 191 > and 190. > IMHO you can ignore this. > You can use load the the number of keys estimate from cfstats to get an idea > of whats happening. > Hope that helps. > ----------------- > Aaron Morton > Freelance Cassandra Developer > @aaronmorton > http://www.thelastpickle.com > On 19/08/2011, at 9:42 PM, Thibaut Britz wrote: > > Hi, > > we were using apache-cassandra-2011-06-28_08-04-46.jar so far in > production and wanted to upgrade to 0.8.4. > > Our cluster was well balanced and we only saved keys with a lower case > md5 prefix. (Orderpreserving partitioner). > Each node owned 20% of the tokens, which was also displayed on each > node in nodetool -h localhost ring. > > After upgrading, our well balanced cluster shows completely wrong > percentage on who owns which keys: > > *.*.*.190: > Address DC Rack Status State Load > Owns Token > > ffffffffffffffff > *.*.*.190 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 87.95 GB > 34.57% 2a > *.*.*.191 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 84.3 GB > 0.02% 55 > *.*.*.192 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.46 GB > 0.02% 80 > *.*.*.194 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 68.16 GB > 0.02% aa > *.*.*.196 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.9 GB > 65.36% ffffffffffffffff > > *.*.*.191: > Address DC Rack Status State Load > Owns Token > > ffffffffffffffff > *.*.*.190 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 87.95 GB > 36.46% 2a > *.*.*.191 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 84.3 GB > 26.02% 55 > *.*.*.192 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.46 GB > 0.02% 80 > *.*.*.194 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 68.16 GB > 0.02% aa > *.*.*.196 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.9 GB > 37.48% ffffffffffffffff > > *.*.*.192: > Address DC Rack Status State Load > Owns Token > > ffffffffffffffff > *.*.*.190 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 87.95 GB > 38.16% 2a > *.*.*.191 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 84.3 GB > 27.61% 55 > *.*.*.192 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.46 GB > 34.17% 80 > *.*.*.194 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 68.16 GB > 0.02% aa > *.*.*.196 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.9 GB > 0.02% ffffffffffffffff > > *.*.*.194: > Address DC Rack Status State Load > Owns Token > > ffffffffffffffff > *.*.*.190 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 87.95 GB > 0.03% 2a > *.*.*.191 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 84.3 GB > 31.43% 55 > *.*.*.192 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.46 GB > 39.69% 80 > *.*.*.194 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 68.16 GB > 28.82% aa > *.*.*.196 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.9 GB > 0.03% ffffffffffffffff > > *.*.*.196: > Address DC Rack Status State Load > Owns Token > > ffffffffffffffff > *.*.*.190 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 87.95 GB > 0.02% 2a > *.*.*.191 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 84.3 GB > 0.02% 55 > *.*.*.192 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.46 GB > 0.02% 80 > *.*.*.194 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 68.16 GB > 27.52% aa > *.*.*.196 datacenter1 rack1 Up Normal 79.9 GB > 72.42% ffffffffffffffff > > > Interestingly, each server shows something completely different. > > Removing the locationInfo files didn't help. > -Dcassandra.load_ring_state=false didn't help as well. > > Our cassandra.yaml is at http://pastebin.com/pCVCt3RM > > Any idea on what might cause this? Is it save to suspect that > operating under this distribution will cause severe data loss? Or can > I safely ignore this? > > Thanks, > Thibaut > >
