Robert, is it possible you've changed the partitioner during the upgrade? (e.g. from RandomPartitioner to Murmur3Partitioner ?)
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Mullen, Robert <robert.mul...@pearson.com>wrote: > The nodetool repair command (which took about 8 hours) seems to have > sync'd the data in us-east, all 3 nodes returning 59 for the count now. > I'm wondering if this has more to do with changing the replication factor > from 2 to 3 and how 2.0.2 reports the % owned rather than the upgrade > itself. I still don't understand why it's reporting 16% for each node when > 100% seems to reflect the state of the cluster better. I didn't find any > info in those issues you posted that would relate to the % changing from > 100% ->16%. > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Mullen, Robert <robert.mul...@pearson.com > > wrote: > >> from cql >> cqlsh>select count(*) from topics; >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com>wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mullen, Robert < >>> robert.mul...@pearson.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a column family called "topics" which has a count of 47 on one >>>> node, 59 on another and 49 on another node. It was my understanding with a >>>> replication factor of 3 and 3 nodes in each ring that the nodes should be >>>> equal so I could lose a node in the ring and have no loss of data. Based >>>> upon that I would expect the counts across the nodes to all be 59 in this >>>> case. >>>> >>> >>> In what specific way are you counting rows? >>> >>> =Rob >>> >> >> > -- Or Sher
