> > Assuming replication factor is >2, if a node dies, why does it matter? If > we add a new node is added, shouldn't it just take the chunk of data it > server as the "primary" node from the other existing nodes. > Why do we need to worry about replacing the dead node?
The reason this matters is because I am unable to do a nodetool repair on my keyspace with the dead node still being listed in nodetool status. It fails complaining that it cant't reach the dead node. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jeremy Jongsma <jer...@barchart.com> wrote: > A dead node is still allocated key ranges, and Cassandra will wait for it > to come back online rather than redistributing its data. It needs to be > decommissioned or replaced by a new node for it to be truly dead as far as > the cluster is concerned. > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Prem Yadav <ipremya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in the last week week, we saw at least two emails about dead node >> replacement. Though I saw the documentation about how to do this, i am not >> sure I understand why this is required. >> >> Assuming replication factor is >2, if a node dies, why does it matter? If >> we add a new node is added, shouldn't it just take the chunk of data it >> server as the "primary" node from the other existing nodes. >> Why do we need to worry about replacing the dead node? >> >> Thanks >> > >
