On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I mispoke really. It is not dangerous you just have to understand what it > means. this jira discusses it. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3868
Per Sylvain on the referenced ticket : " I don't disagree about the efficiency of the valve, but at what price? 'Bootstrapping a node will make you lose increments (you don't know which ones, you don't know how many and this even if nothing goes wrong)' is a pretty bad drawback. That is pretty much why that option makes me uncomfortable: it does give you better performance, so people may be tempted to use it. Now if it was only a matter of replicating writes only through read-repair/repair, then ok, it's pretty dangerous but it's rather easy to explain/understand the drawback (if you don't lose a disk, you don't lose increments, and you'd better use CL.ALL or have read_repair_chance to 1). But the fact that it doesn't work with bootstrap/move makes me wonder if having the option at all is not making a disservice to users. " To me anything that can be described as "will make you lose increments (you don't know which ones, you don't know how many and this even if nothing goes wrong)" and which therefore "doesn't work with bootstrap/move" is correctly described as "dangerous." :D =Rob -- =Robert Coli AIM>ALK - rc...@palominodb.com YAHOO - rcoli.palominob SKYPE - rcoli_palominodb
