Re: [VOTE] CEP-7: Storage Attached Index

[Caleb Rackliffe]

The vote passes, with 4 binding +1 votes, 4 non-binding +1 votes, and zero 
binding vetos.

> On Feb 21, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Caleb Rackliffe  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Given this spanned  the weekend, I'll leave the vote open for today...
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:27 PM Dinesh Joshi  wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> On 2/17/22 23:47, DuyHai Doan wrote:
>> > +1 nb
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:41 AM Berenguer Blasi
>> > mailto:berenguerbl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > +1
>> > 
>> > On 18/2/22 2:15, Jasonstack Zhao Yang wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 08:15, Jeremy Hanna
>> >> mailto:jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 nb. Thanks Caleb, Mike, Jason, and everyone involved with
>> >> the effort.
>> >>
>> >>> On Feb 17, 2022, at 4:23 PM, Caleb Rackliffe
>> >>> mailto:calebrackli...@gmail.com>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to call a vote to approve CEP-7.
>> >>>
>> >>> Proposal: 
>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-7%3A+Storage+Attached+Index
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> Discussion:
>> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/hh67k3t86m7299qkt61gmzb4h96bl90w
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> >>> Votes by committers are considered binding.
>> >>> A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no
>> >>> binding vetoes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>> Caleb
>> >>
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Hotfix release procedure

[Josh McKenzie]

Took the liberty to update the confluence wiki to reflect the "create branch 
off last released tag with only delta required" for hotfixes.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Patching%2C+versioning%2C+and+LTS+releases

If anyone disagrees please let me know.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> Any committer can submit a devbranch build...
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Brandon
> 
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:58 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> We've done concurrent releases without security before, and you follow 
> >> much closer than others. I feel most people, if they saw all of the 
> >> changes reverted and a release of a single fix, would either instantly 
> >> know it's security (high confidence pointer to exactly which patch) OR 
> >> assume someone botched the release prep and draw attention to it. So we're 
> >> trading "someone who's very involved has a high confidence it's security 
> >> but has to dig through 30 patches to find it" vs "everyone knows exactly 
> >> what's going on", the former seems better
> >
> >
> >
> > My initial thoughts are aligned with what Jeff writes here. Furthermore 
> > when you apply our new-found practice of stable trunk and focus on QA, 
> > which I hope is continuously improving, this point only becomes more valid.
> >
> > And how to do CI (we need a green CI for a release remember ;) on a private 
> > commit is something i really am unsure how we would do…
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Tibor Répási]

Hi,

I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an operator, my 
primer concern is the transition. How would we change the config structure from 
legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My thoughts on this:

1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra will 
read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. May raise 
warning on startup when legacy was used.
   pros:
- separate files for separate formats
- clean and operator controlled switch to new format
- already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
   cons:
- name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to something 
else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
- would need considerable work to get config to the new format
- format translation not solved

2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy 
format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the 
upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
  pros:
- seamless upgrade process
- tool can be tested properly before
  cons:
- may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling the 
contents of cassandra.yaml
- poor transparency for operators

3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy format 
found.
pros:
  - no filename change
  - operator controlled switch to new format
cons:
  - higher complexity at implementation and testing
  - format translation not solved

4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress 
default settings.
pros:
  - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from changing the 
config format, could be added before and support any format
  - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
  - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
cons: ?


My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.

Tibor


> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe  wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone,
> 
> There has already been some Slack discussion 
>  around this, 
> but for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby more widely 
> for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292 
>  to eventually move 
> cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
> 
> The proposal itself is here 
> ,
>  and there has already been some inline discussion, but feel free to drop any 
> feedback there, in the Jira, or here, depending on what you're most 
> comfortable with.
> 
> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing to 
> adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I think 
> would be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time to inform work 
> on new parameters, like those we're planning to add in CASSANDRA-17188 
> .
> 
> Thanks!

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Caleb Rackliffe]

My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We could
add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that would
eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat *within* a given file.

Thanks for enumerating these!

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an
> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the
> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My
> thoughts on this:
>
> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra
> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise.
> May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>pros:
> - separate files for separate formats
> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to
> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>cons:
> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to
> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
> - format translation not solved
>
> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy
> format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the
> upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
>   pros:
> - seamless upgrade process
> - tool can be tested properly before
>   cons:
> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling
> the contents of cassandra.yaml
> - poor transparency for operators
>
> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy
> format found.
> pros:
>   - no filename change
>   - operator controlled switch to new format
> cons:
>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>   - format translation not solved
>
> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the
> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress
> default settings.
> pros:
>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from
> changing the config format, could be added before and support any format
>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
> cons: ?
>
>
> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
>
> Tibor
>
>
> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe 
> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> There has already been some Slack discussion
>  around
> this, but for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby
> more widely for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292
>  to eventually
> move cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
>
> The proposal itself is here
> ,
> and there has already been some inline discussion, but feel free to drop
> any feedback there, in the Jira, or here, depending on what you're most
> comfortable with.
>
> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing
> to adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I
> think *would* be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time to
> inform work on new parameters, like those we're planning to add in
> CASSANDRA-17188 .
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

I don’t really care much about what the actual structure ends up being.  My 
main suggestion would be that we do not do anything “incremental” here.  I 
think that would just cause more confusion to have some properties using a new 
format and some using the current format.  There should be some commit that 
switches from the current format to the new format, and anything before that is 
using the current format and anything after that uses the new format.

-Jeremiah

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Caleb Rackliffe  
> wrote:
> 
> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We could 
> add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that would 
> eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a given file.
> 
> Thanks for enumerating these!
> 
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an operator, 
> my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the config structure 
> from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My thoughts on this:
> 
> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra will 
> read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. May 
> raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>pros:
> - separate files for separate formats
> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>cons:
> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to something 
> else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
> - format translation not solved
> 
> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy 
> format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the 
> upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
>   pros:
> - seamless upgrade process
> - tool can be tested properly before
>   cons:
> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling the 
> contents of cassandra.yaml
> - poor transparency for operators
> 
> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy format 
> found.
> pros:
>   - no filename change
>   - operator controlled switch to new format
> cons:
>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>   - format translation not solved
> 
> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress 
> default settings.
> pros:
>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from changing 
> the config format, could be added before and support any format
>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
> cons: ?
> 
> 
> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
> 
> Tibor
> 
> 
>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hey everyone,
>> 
>> There has already been some Slack discussion 
>> 
>>  around this, but for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to 
>> lobby more widely for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292 
>>  to eventually move 
>> cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
>> 
>> The proposal itself is here 
>> ,
>>  and there has already been some inline discussion, but feel free to drop 
>> any feedback there, in the Jira, or here, depending on what you're most 
>> comfortable with.
>> 
>> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing to 
>> adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I think 
>> would be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time to inform 
>> work on new parameters, like those we're planning to add in CASSANDRA-17188 
>> .
>> 
>> Thanks!
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Tibor Répási]

Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.

If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to change 
the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the version element 
could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need any change for 
legacy format configuration. New config format must include version: 2. When in 
some later version the support for legacy configuration is removed, the default 
for the version element could be changed to 2 or removed.

> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  wrote:
> 
> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We could 
> add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that would 
> eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a given file.
> 
> Thanks for enumerating these!
> 
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an operator, 
> my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the config structure 
> from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My thoughts on this:
> 
> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra will 
> read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. May 
> raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>pros:
> - separate files for separate formats
> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>cons:
> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to something 
> else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
> - format translation not solved
> 
> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy 
> format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the 
> upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
>   pros:
> - seamless upgrade process
> - tool can be tested properly before
>   cons:
> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling the 
> contents of cassandra.yaml
> - poor transparency for operators
> 
> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy format 
> found.
> pros:
>   - no filename change
>   - operator controlled switch to new format
> cons:
>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>   - format translation not solved
> 
> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress 
> default settings.
> pros:
>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from changing 
> the config format, could be added before and support any format
>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
> cons: ?
> 
> 
> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
> 
> Tibor
> 
> 
>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hey everyone,
>> 
>> There has already been some Slack discussion 
>>  around 
>> this, but for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby more 
>> widely for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292 
>>  to eventually move 
>> cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
>> 
>> The proposal itself is here 
>> ,
>>  and there has already been some inline discussion, but feel free to drop 
>> any feedback there, in the Jira, or here, depending on what you're most 
>> comfortable with.
>> 
>> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing to 
>> adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I think 
>> would be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time to inform 
>> work on new parameters, like those we're planning to add in CASSANDRA-17188 
>> .
>> 
>> Thanks!
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Patrick McFadin]

I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale
on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.

With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config
files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the config
file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver
that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new major
version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a clean
break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for surprises
later if there are new required config values and somebody doesn't even
realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.

Patrick

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási 
wrote:

> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
>
> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to
> change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the version
> element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need any
> change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include
> version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy configuration
> is removed, the default for the version element could be changed to 2 or
> removed.
>
> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe 
> wrote:
>
> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We
> could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that
> would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat *within* a given
> file.
>
> Thanks for enumerating these!
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an
>> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the
>> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My
>> thoughts on this:
>>
>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra
>> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise.
>> May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>>pros:
>> - separate files for separate formats
>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to
>> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>>cons:
>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to
>> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
>> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
>> - format translation not solved
>>
>> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert
>> legacy format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is
>> found, the upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
>>   pros:
>> - seamless upgrade process
>> - tool can be tested properly before
>>   cons:
>> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling
>> the contents of cassandra.yaml
>> - poor transparency for operators
>>
>> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy
>> format found.
>> pros:
>>   - no filename change
>>   - operator controlled switch to new format
>> cons:
>>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>>   - format translation not solved
>>
>> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the
>> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress
>> default settings.
>> pros:
>>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from
>> changing the config format, could be added before and support any format
>>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
>>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
>> cons: ?
>>
>>
>> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
>>
>> Tibor
>>
>>
>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> There has already been some Slack discussion
>>  around
>> this, but for anyone who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby
>> more widely for my proposal in CASSANDRA-17292
>>  to eventually
>> move cassandra.yaml toward a more nested structure.
>>
>> The proposal itself is here
>> ,
>> and there has already been some inline discussion, but feel free to drop
>> any feedback there, in the Jira, or here, depending on what you're most
>> comfortable with.
>>
>> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing
>> to adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I
>> think *would* be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time
>> to inform work on new

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Stefan Miklosovic]

+1 to what Patrick says.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin  wrote:
>
> I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale on 
> a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
>
> With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config 
> files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the config file 
> changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver that 
> can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new major version, 
> not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a clean break. No 
> "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for surprises later if 
> there are new required config values and somebody doesn't even realize they 
> have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási  wrote:
>>
>> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
>>
>> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to 
>> change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the version 
>> element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need any 
>> change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include 
>> version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy configuration 
>> is removed, the default for the version element could be changed to 2 or 
>> removed.
>>
>> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  wrote:
>>
>> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We could 
>> add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that would 
>> eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a given file.
>>
>> Thanks for enumerating these!
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an operator, 
>>> my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the config 
>>> structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My thoughts 
>>> on this:
>>>
>>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra 
>>> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. 
>>> May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>>>pros:
>>> - separate files for separate formats
>>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
>>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
>>> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>>>cons:
>>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to something 
>>> else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
>>> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
>>> - format translation not solved
>>>
>>> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy 
>>> format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the 
>>> upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
>>>   pros:
>>> - seamless upgrade process
>>> - tool can be tested properly before
>>>   cons:
>>> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling 
>>> the contents of cassandra.yaml
>>> - poor transparency for operators
>>>
>>> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy 
>>> format found.
>>> pros:
>>>   - no filename change
>>>   - operator controlled switch to new format
>>> cons:
>>>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
>>>   - format translation not solved
>>>
>>> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
>>> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress 
>>> default settings.
>>> pros:
>>>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from changing 
>>> the config format, could be added before and support any format
>>>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
>>>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
>>> cons: ?
>>>
>>>
>>> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
>>>
>>> Tibor
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> There has already been some Slack discussion around this, but for anyone 
>>> who doesn't follow that closely, I'd like to lobby more widely for my 
>>> proposal in CASSANDRA-17292 to eventually move cassandra.yaml toward a more 
>>> nested structure.
>>>
>>> The proposal itself is here, and there has already been some inline 
>>> discussion, but feel free to drop any feedback there, in the Jira, or here, 
>>> depending on what you're most comfortable with.
>>>
>>> Given where we are in the lead-up to 4.1, I have no intention of pushing to 
>>> adopt any of this for existing config in that release. However, what I 
>>> think would be nice is if we could come to a rough consensus in time to 
>>> inform w

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Stefan Miklosovic]

I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have
dtests in Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is
what Ekaterina was doing - supporting old configuration while
introducing new one. If we make "a big cut" and old way of doing
things would not be possible, how are we going to treat this in dtests
when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs and 5 on new
configs?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic
 wrote:
>
> +1 to what Patrick says.
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin  wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale 
> > on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
> >
> > With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config 
> > files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the config 
> > file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver 
> > that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new major 
> > version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a clean 
> > break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for surprises 
> > later if there are new required config values and somebody doesn't even 
> > realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
> >>
> >> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to 
> >> change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the 
> >> version element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need 
> >> any change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include 
> >> version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy 
> >> configuration is removed, the default for the version element could be 
> >> changed to 2 or removed.
> >>
> >> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We 
> >> could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML 
> >> that would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a 
> >> given file.
> >>
> >> Thanks for enumerating these!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an 
> >>> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the 
> >>> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My 
> >>> thoughts on this:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra 
> >>> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. 
> >>> May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
> >>>pros:
> >>> - separate files for separate formats
> >>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
> >>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
> >>> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
> >>>cons:
> >>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to 
> >>> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
> >>> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
> >>> - format translation not solved
> >>>
> >>> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert 
> >>> legacy format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is 
> >>> found, the upgrade process should convert the config file to the new 
> >>> format.
> >>>   pros:
> >>> - seamless upgrade process
> >>> - tool can be tested properly before
> >>>   cons:
> >>> - may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling 
> >>> the contents of cassandra.yaml
> >>> - poor transparency for operators
> >>>
> >>> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy 
> >>> format found.
> >>> pros:
> >>>   - no filename change
> >>>   - operator controlled switch to new format
> >>> cons:
> >>>   - higher complexity at implementation and testing
> >>>   - format translation not solved
> >>>
> >>> 4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
> >>> Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to 
> >>> suppress default settings.
> >>> pros:
> >>>   - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from 
> >>> changing the config format, could be added before and support any format
> >>>   - the bare information is already available in system_views.settings
> >>>   - could be combined with #1 or #3 to support the format translation
> >>> cons: ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My favourite would be #3 + #4, while I would most dislike #2.
> >>>
> >>> Tibor
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 17. Feb 2022, at 23:13, Caleb Rackliffe  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey everyone,
> >>>
> >>> There h

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

DTests are one side but to be clear, the main reason for backward
compatibility to be introduced in 15234 were not the tests but the users.
That was a very clear requirement and in my mind this work also intends to
have some backward compatibility? No?
But DTests and even in-jvm are quite a valid concern!

I am +1 to what Jeremiah said that Ideally we need to see new
version/layout/format introduced at once. As I said before, I wouldn’t
recommend to start adding new config as per the future version potential
work now so we don’t change config twice. I find this confusing, even if I
understand that the intention to make this was not to have to change new
config soon. But in my mind it is about the bigger picture and not about
small bites.

 On the other hand, if there is backward compatibility and new and old
config file (I like the idea of v1, v2, etc) then It shouldn’t be a concern
to change those new parameters in next version. I fear that otherwise we
might get into confusion for both our users and our contributors. Also, I
suspect we will have the old one still compatible but only the new one
in-tree for new development?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 15:53, Stefan Miklosovic <
stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com> wrote:

> I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have
> dtests in Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is
> what Ekaterina was doing - supporting old configuration while
> introducing new one. If we make "a big cut" and old way of doing
> things would not be possible, how are we going to treat this in dtests
> when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs and 5 on new
> configs?
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic
>  wrote:
> >
> > +1 to what Patrick says.
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this
> scale on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
> > >
> > > With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new
> config files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the
> config file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a
> lifesaver that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new
> major version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a
> clean break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for
> surprises later if there are new required config values and somebody
> doesn't even realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
> > >>
> > >> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary
> to change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the
> version element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need
> any change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include
> version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy configuration
> is removed, the default for the version element could be changed to 2 or
> removed.
> > >>
> > >> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We
> could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that
> would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a given
> file.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for enumerating these!
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an
> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the
> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My
> thoughts on this:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files.
> Cassandra will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one
> otherwise. May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
> > >>>pros:
> > >>> - separate files for separate formats
> > >>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
> > >>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch
> to GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
> > >>>cons:
> > >>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to
> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
> > >>> - would need considerable work to get config to the new format
> > >>> - format translation not solved
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert
> legacy format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is
> found, the upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
> > >>>   pros:
> > >>> - seamless upgrade process
> > >>> - tool can be tested properly before
> > >>>   cons:
> > >>> - may interact 

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Paulo Motta]

I think we can easily support a hybrid world where we can support legacy
configuration safely while allowing new clusters from leveraging modern
configuration. And eventually "switch" to only support the new
configuration layout.

> If we make "a big cut" and old way of doing things would not be possible,
how are we going to treat this in dtests when we will have stuff for 3.11,
4 on old configs and 5 on newconfigs?

We can add a flag to override the default behavior of not parsing legacy
configuration files, and use these on dtests.

I added a new configuration layout proposal to <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17292> that groups
configurations by feature using simple nesting.  Non-complete example on: <
https://gist.github.com/pauloricardomg/4369f4b0dd8b84421a11ae61bf2d2c7e>

This proposal allows new features to leverage the new configuration layout
while supporting old configuration in the previous layout until we decide
to do a "big bang" migration of old configurations to the new layout.

Em ter., 22 de fev. de 2022 às 18:10, Ekaterina Dimitrova <
e.dimitr...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> DTests are one side but to be clear, the main reason for backward
> compatibility to be introduced in 15234 were not the tests but the users.
> That was a very clear requirement and in my mind this work also intends to
> have some backward compatibility? No?
> But DTests and even in-jvm are quite a valid concern!
>
> I am +1 to what Jeremiah said that Ideally we need to see new
> version/layout/format introduced at once. As I said before, I wouldn’t
> recommend to start adding new config as per the future version potential
> work now so we don’t change config twice. I find this confusing, even if I
> understand that the intention to make this was not to have to change new
> config soon. But in my mind it is about the bigger picture and not about
> small bites.
>
>  On the other hand, if there is backward compatibility and new and old
> config file (I like the idea of v1, v2, etc) then It shouldn’t be a concern
> to change those new parameters in next version. I fear that otherwise we
> might get into confusion for both our users and our contributors. Also, I
> suspect we will have the old one still compatible but only the new one
> in-tree for new development?
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 15:53, Stefan Miklosovic <
> stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have
>> dtests in Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is
>> what Ekaterina was doing - supporting old configuration while
>> introducing new one. If we make "a big cut" and old way of doing
>> things would not be possible, how are we going to treat this in dtests
>> when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs and 5 on new
>> configs?
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to what Patrick says.
>> >
>> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this
>> scale on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
>> > >
>> > > With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new
>> config files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the
>> config file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a
>> lifesaver that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new
>> major version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a
>> clean break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for
>> surprises later if there are new required config values and somebody
>> doesn't even realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.
>> > >
>> > > Patrick
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási 
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
>> > >>
>> > >> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary
>> to change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the
>> version element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need
>> any change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include
>> version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy configuration
>> is removed, the default for the version element could be changed to 2 or
>> removed.
>> > >>
>> > >> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe 
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4.
>> We could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML
>> that would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a
>> given file.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks for enumerating these!
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási <
>> tibor.rep...@anzix.org> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an
>> operator, my primer c

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Caleb Rackliffe]

@Patrick I’m absolutely intending for this to be a 5.0 concern. The only reason 
why it would have any bearing on 4.x is the case where we’re adding new config 
that could fit into the v2 structure now and not require any later changes.

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Bernardo Sanchez  
> wrote:
> 
> unsubscribe
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Miklosovic 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:53 PM
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested 
> structure around major database concepts
> 
> "EXTERNAL EMAIL" - This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
> content is safe. If you are unsure, please contact hel...@pointclickcare.com.
> 
> I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have dtests in 
> Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is what Ekaterina was 
> doing - supporting old configuration while introducing new one. If we make "a 
> big cut" and old way of doing things would not be possible, how are we going 
> to treat this in dtests when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs 
> and 5 on new configs?
> 
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> +1 to what Patrick says.
>> 
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale 
>>> on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.
>>> 
>>> With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config 
>>> files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the config 
>>> file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver 
>>> that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new major 
>>> version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a clean 
>>> break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for surprises 
>>> later if there are new required config values and somebody doesn't even 
>>> realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási  
>>> wrote:
 
 Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
 
 If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to 
 change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the 
 version element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need 
 any change for legacy format configuration. New config format must include 
 version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy 
 configuration is removed, the default for the version element could be 
 changed to 2 or removed.
 
 On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  
 wrote:
 
 My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We 
 could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML 
 that would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a 
 given file.
 
 Thanks for enumerating these!
 
 On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  
 wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an 
> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the 
> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My 
> thoughts on this:
> 
> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra 
> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. 
> May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>   pros:
>- separate files for separate formats
>- clean and operator controlled switch to new format
>- already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>   cons:
>- name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to 
> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
>- would need considerable work to get config to the new format
>- format translation not solved
> 
> 2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert 
> legacy format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is 
> found, the upgrade process should convert the config file to the new 
> format.
>  pros:
>- seamless upgrade process
>- tool can be tested properly before
>  cons:
>- may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling 
> the contents of cassandra.yaml
>- poor transparency for operators
> 
> 3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy 
> format found.
>pros:
>  - no filename change
>  - operator controlled switch to new format
>cons:
>  - higher co

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[Berenguer Blasi]

+1 to a non-incremental approach as well.

On 23/2/22 1:27, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:

@Patrick I’m absolutely intending for this to be a 5.0 concern. The only reason 
why it would have any bearing on 4.x is the case where we’re adding new config 
that could fit into the v2 structure now and not require any later changes.


On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Bernardo Sanchez  
wrote:

unsubscribe

-Original Message-
From: Stefan Miklosovic 
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:53 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested 
structure around major database concepts

"EXTERNAL EMAIL" - This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
not click or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is 
safe. If you are unsure, please contact hel...@pointclickcare.com.

I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have dtests in Python and 
they need to run with old configs too. That is what Ekaterina was doing - supporting old 
configuration while introducing new one. If we make "a big cut" and old way of 
doing things would not be possible, how are we going to treat this in dtests when we will 
have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old configs and 5 on new configs?


On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic 
 wrote:

+1 to what Patrick says.


On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin  wrote:

I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale on a 
dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.

With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config files and reject 
old config files. If any of you went through the config file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 
-> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total 
upgrade to a new major version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a 
clean break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for surprises 
later if there are new required config values and somebody doesn't even realize they have 
some old 4.x yaml files laying around.

Patrick

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási  wrote:

Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.

If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to change 
the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the version element 
could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not need any change for 
legacy format configuration. New config format must include version: 2. When in 
some later version the support for legacy configuration is removed, the default 
for the version element could be changed to 2 or removed.

On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  wrote:

My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We could add something like 
a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML that would eliminate any possible 
confusion about back-compat within a given file.

Thanks for enumerating these!

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  wrote:

Hi,

I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an operator, my 
primer concern is the transition. How would we change the config structure from 
legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My thoughts on this:

1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra will 
read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one otherwise. May raise 
warning on startup when legacy was used.
   pros:
- separate files for separate formats
- clean and operator controlled switch to new format
- already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
   cons:
- name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to something 
else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
- would need considerable work to get config to the new format
- format translation not solved

2. Offline configuration converter tool may be available to convert legacy 
format to new one. During package upgrade, if a legacy config is found, the 
upgrade process should convert the config file to the new format.
  pros:
- seamless upgrade process
- tool can be tested properly before
  cons:
- may interact badly with configuration management tools controlling the 
contents of cassandra.yaml
- poor transparency for operators

3. Cassandra could read both formats, may warn on startup when legacy format 
found.
pros:
  - no filename change
  - operator controlled switch to new format
cons:
  - higher complexity at implementation and testing
  - format translation not solved

4. An online tool, e.g. nodetool command to export the configuration the 
Cassandra node is currently running with, with filtering option to suppress 
default settings.
pros:
  - such a nodetool command would be useful independently from changing the 
config format, could be added before and support any forma

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested structure around major database concepts

[bened...@apache.org]

I agree that a new configuration layout should be introduced once only, not 
incrementally.

However, I disagree that we should immediately deprecate the old config file 
and refuse to parse it. We can maintain compatibility indefinitely at low cost, 
so we should do so.

Users of the old format, when using new configuration options, can simply use 
dot separators to specify them. Since most settings are not required, this is 
by far the least painful upgrade process.


From: Berenguer Blasi 
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 06:53
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested 
structure around major database concepts
+1 to a non-incremental approach as well.

On 23/2/22 1:27, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:
> @Patrick I’m absolutely intending for this to be a 5.0 concern. The only 
> reason why it would have any bearing on 4.x is the case where we’re adding 
> new config that could fit into the v2 structure now and not require any later 
> changes.
>
>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Bernardo Sanchez 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> unsubscribe
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Stefan Miklosovic 
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:53 PM
>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-17292 Move cassandra.yaml toward a nested 
>> structure around major database concepts
>>
>> "EXTERNAL EMAIL" - This email originated from outside of the organization. 
>> Do not click or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
>> the content is safe. If you are unsure, please contact 
>> hel...@pointclickcare.com.
>>
>> I want to add that to, however, on the other hand, we also do have dtests in 
>> Python and they need to run with old configs too. That is what Ekaterina was 
>> doing - supporting old configuration while introducing new one. If we make 
>> "a big cut" and old way of doing things would not be possible, how are we 
>> going to treat this in dtests when we will have stuff for 3.11, 4 on old 
>> configs and 5 on new configs?
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:48, Stefan Miklosovic 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to what Patrick says.
>>>
 On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 21:40, Patrick McFadin  wrote:

 I'm going to put up a red flag of making config file changes of this scale 
 on a dot release. This should really be a 5.0 consideration.

 With that, I would propose a #5. 5.0 nodes will only read the new config 
 files and reject old config files. If any of you went through the config 
 file changes from Apache HTTPd 1.3 -> 2.0 you know how much of a lifesaver 
 that can be for ops. Make it a part of the total upgrade to a new major 
 version, not a radical change inside of a dot version, and make it a clean 
 break. No "legacy config" laying around. That's just a recipe for 
 surprises later if there are new required config values and somebody 
 doesn't even realize they have some old 4.x yaml files laying around.

 Patrick

 On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tibor Répási  
 wrote:
> Glad to be agree on #4. That feature could be add anytime.
>
> If a version element is added to the YAML, then it is not necessary to 
> change the filename, thus we could end up with #3. The value of the 
> version element could default to 1 in the first phase, which does not 
> need any change for legacy format configuration. New config format must 
> include version: 2. When in some later version the support for legacy 
> configuration is removed, the default for the version element could be 
> changed to 2 or removed.
>
> On 22. Feb 2022, at 19:30, Caleb Rackliffe  
> wrote:
>
> My initial preference would be something like combining #1 and #4. We 
> could add something like a simple "version: <1|2>" element to the YAML 
> that would eliminate any possible confusion about back-compat within a 
> given file.
>
> Thanks for enumerating these!
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Tibor Répási  
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of having cassandra.yaml better structured, as an 
>> operator, my primer concern is the transition. How would we change the 
>> config structure from legacy to the new one during a rolling upgrade? My 
>> thoughts on this:
>>
>> 1. Legacy and new configuration is stored in different files. Cassandra 
>> will read the legacy file on startup if it exists, the new one 
>> otherwise. May raise warning on startup when legacy was used.
>>pros:
>> - separate files for separate formats
>> - clean and operator controlled switch to new format
>> - already known procedure, e.g. change from PropertyFileSnitch to 
>> GossipingPropertyFileSnitch
>>cons:
>> - name of the config file would change from cassandra.yaml to 
>> something else (cassandra_v2.yaml, config.yaml ???)
>> - would need con