> 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x? Because this fix in 1.0.11: * fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes >= 1.1 (CASSANDRA-4195)
-Jeremiah On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Mike Neir <m...@liquidweb.com> wrote: > Is there anything that you can link that describes the pitfalls you mention? > I'd like a bit more information. Just for clarity's sake, are you > recommending 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x? Or would 1.0.9 -> 1.1.12 -> > 1.2.x suffice? > > Regarding the placement strategy mentioned in a different post, I'm using the > Simple placement strategy, with the RackInferringSnitch. How does that play > into the bugs mentioned previously about cross-DC replication? > > MN > > On 08/30/2013 01:28 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: >> You probably want to go to 1.0.11/12 first no matter what. If you want the >> least chance of issue you should then go to 1.1.12. While there is a high >> probability that going from 1.0.X->1.2 will work. You have the best chance >> at no failures if you go through 1.1.12. There are some edge cases that can >> cause errors if you don't do that. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >>
