Hi George, That's the best way to monitor repairs "out of the box" I could think of. When you're not seeing 2048 (in your case), it might be due to log rotation or to a session failure. Have you had a look at repair failures?
I am wondering why the implementor did not put something in the log (e.g. > ... Repair command #41 has ended...) to clearly state that the repair has > completed. +1, and some informations about ranges successfully repaired and the ranges that failed could be a very good thing as well. It would be easy to then read the repair result and to know what to do next (re-run repair on some ranges, move to the next node, etc). 2016-09-20 17:00 GMT+02:00 Li, Guangxing <guangxing...@pearson.com>: > Hi, > > I am using version 2.0.9. I have been looking into the logs to see if a > repair is finished. Each time a repair is started on a node, I am seeing > log line like "INFO [Thread-112920] 2016-09-16 19:00:43,805 > StorageService.java (line 2646) Starting repair command #41, repairing 2048 > ranges for keyspace groupmanager" in system.log. So I know that I am > expecting to see 2048 log lines like "INFO [AntiEntropySessions:109] > 2016-09-16 19:27:20,662 RepairSession.java (line 282) [repair > #8b910950-7c43-11e6-88f3-f147ea74230b] session completed successfully". > Once I see 2048 such log lines, I know this repair has completed. But this > is not dependable since sometimes I am seeing less than 2048 but I know > there is no repair going on since I do not see any trace of repair in > system.log for a long time. So it seems to me that there is a clear way to > tell that a repair has started but there is no clear way to tell a repair > has ended. The only thing you can do is to watch the log and if you do not > see repair activity for a long time, the repair is done somehow. I am > wondering why the implementor did not put something in the log (e.g. ... > Repair command #41 has ended...) to clearly state that the repair has > completed. > > Thanks. > > George. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Jens Rantil <jens.ran...@tink.se> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> - The size of your data >>> - The number of vnodes >>> - The compaction throughput >>> - The streaming throughput >>> - The hardware available >>> - The load of the cluster >>> - ... >>> >> >> I've also heard that the number of clustering keys per partition key >> could have an impact. Might be worth investigating. >> >> Cheers, >> Jens >> -- >> >> Jens Rantil >> Backend Developer @ Tink >> >> Tink AB, Wallingatan 5, 111 60 Stockholm, Sweden >> For urgent matters you can reach me at +46-708-84 18 32. >> > >
