I forgot to check nodetool gossipinfo. Still, why does the first check think
that the address exists, but the second doesn't?
On Friday, January 6, 2017 1:11 PM, David Berry <dbe...@blackberry.com>
wrote:
#yiv4782259727 #yiv4782259727 -- _filtered #yiv4782259727 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4782259727 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2
4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4782259727 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5
2 3 3;}#yiv4782259727 #yiv4782259727 p.yiv4782259727MsoNormal, #yiv4782259727
li.yiv4782259727MsoNormal, #yiv4782259727 div.yiv4782259727MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4782259727 h2
{margin-top:34.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:15.0pt;color:#143470;font-weight:normal;}#yiv4782259727
a:link, #yiv4782259727 span.yiv4782259727MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4782259727 a:visited, #yiv4782259727
span.yiv4782259727MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4782259727
p.yiv4782259727msonormal0, #yiv4782259727 li.yiv4782259727msonormal0,
#yiv4782259727 div.yiv4782259727msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4782259727
span.yiv4782259727EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;}#yiv4782259727
span.yiv4782259727Heading2Char {color:#143470;}#yiv4782259727
span.yiv4782259727z-TopofFormChar {display:none;}#yiv4782259727
span.yiv4782259727z-BottomofFormChar {display:none;}#yiv4782259727
.yiv4782259727MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4782259727
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4782259727 div.yiv4782259727WordSection1
{}#yiv4782259727 I’ve encountered this previously where after removing a node,
gossip info is retained for 72 hours which doesn’t allow the IP to be reused
during that period. You can check how long gossip will retain this
information using “nodetool gossipinfo” where the epoch time will be shown with
status For example…. Nodetool gossipinfo /10.236.70.199
generation:1482436691 heartbeat:3942407
STATUS:3942404:LEFT,3074457345618261000,1483995662276
LOAD:3942267:3.60685807E8 SCHEMA:223625:acbf0adb-1bbe-384a-acd7-6a46609497f1
DC:20:orion RACK:22:r1 RELEASE_VERSION:4:2.1.16
RPC_ADDRESS:3:10.236.70.199 SEVERITY:3942406:0.25094103813171387
NET_VERSION:1:8 HOST_ID:2:cd2a767f-3716-4717-9106-52f0380e6184
TOKENS:15:<hidden> Converting it from epoch….. local@img2116saturn101:~$
date -d @$((1483995662276/1000)) Mon Jan 9 21:01:02 UTC 2017 At the time we
waited the 72 hour period before reusing the IP, I’ve not used replace_address
previously. From: Sotirios Delimanolis [mailto:sotodel...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 2:38 PM
To: User <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Logs appear to contradict themselves during bootstrap steps We had
a node go down in our cluster and its disk had to be wiped. During that time,
all nodes in the cluster have restarted at least once. We want to add the
bad node back to the ring. It has the same IP/hostname. I follow the steps here
for "Adding nodes to an existing cluster." When the process is started up,
it reports A node with address <hostname>/<address> already exists,
cancelling join. Use cassandra.replace_address if you want to replace this
node. I found this error message in theStorageService using theGossiper
instance to look up the node's state. Apparently, the node knows about it. So I
followed the instructions and added thecassandra.replace_address system
property and restarted the process. But it reports Cannot replace_address
/<address> because it doesn't exist in gossip So which one is it? Does the
ring know about it or not? Running "nodetool ring" does show it on all other
nodes. I've seen CASSANDRA-8138 andthe conditions are the same, but I can't
understand why it thinks it's not part of gossip. What's the difference between
the gossip check used to make this determination and the gossip check used for
the first error message? Can someone explain? I've since retrieved the
node's id and used it to "nodetool removenode". After rebalancing, I added the
node back and "nodetool cleaned" up. Everything's up and running, but I'd like
to understand what Cassandra was doing.
