Rob,
Thanks for a great answer. While I'm at it, thanks for all the time you put into answering people on this mailing list. I'm sure I'm not the only appreciating it. Cheers, Jens – Skickat från Mailbox On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jens Rantil <jens.ran...@tink.se> wrote: >> Let's say I have an existing cluster and do the following: >> >> 1. I start a new joining node (A). It enters state "Up/Joining". >> Streaming automatically start to this node. >> 2. I wait two minutes (best practise for bootstrapping). >> 3. I start a second node (B) to join the cluster. It allocates some of >> A:s previous parts of the ring and enters state "Up/Joining". Streaming >> automatically starts to this node. >> >> Will streaming of data that A is no longer responsible (after B joined) >> stop immediately? That is, after (3), will data streamed to A only be what >> it is responsible of? >> > It depends on the version of Cassandra. A will get data it "shouldn't" get > in any version that doesn't contain CASSANDRA-2434 patch. If you do not run > "cleanup" on A when A is done bootstrapping > In a version containing 2434, the attempt to bootstrap B will fail and will > not work until A is done bootstrapping, unless you set the > property -Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement=false while starting it. > In general, one DOES NOT WANT TO > SET -Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement!!!!! It fixes 2434, and 2434 is > bad for consistency. > Instead, considering expanding clusters to initial size when they are > empty, and disabling bootstrapping while doing so. > Lots and lots of background on : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434 > Related ticket : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7069 > =Rob > PS - BTW, the fact that 2434 existed for so long, in versions where repair > was often broken/unused, is the strongest single item of information in > support of the Coli Conjecture...
