Do you know of the default changed? I'm pretty sure I never changed that setting the the config file.
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Or Sher <or.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
