Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?
> *+1* to changing to G1 on trunk for 5.0 and 4.1.1. We have over a
> thousand clusters and over 10K nodes running on J8 and 11 with G1GC and
> memory management is excellent.
>
Thanks for the support Brad, you're definitely not alone. Alas the project
works in a consensus model, i.e. off the objections made - which have been
all sound. A good compromise has been offered that I will move forward on,
and I'll also update the commented out G1 settings in 4.1.1 to match those
becoming the default in trunk.
> Excellent. Two observations: first we reverted MaxGCPauseMillis=200,
> which is the JVM default. Cassandra's jvm{8,11}-server.options has 500
> (commented out) for some reason. Second on some clusters with 'humongous
> allocations' we've had to increase G1HeapRegionSize in a few cases on
> clusters with very large partitions.
>
> CMS was deprecated in Java 9, so I don't know why Cassandra would still
> use it as the default.
>
Absolutely! Take a look at the patch, it aligns the G1 settings closer to
what you say.
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/compare/trunk...thelastpickle:cassandra:mck/7486/trunk
My apologies I did not create this ticket earlier.
[DISCUSS] Clear rules about sstable versioning and downgrade support
Hi, I'd like to bring that topic to your attention. I think that we should think about allowing users to downgrade under certain conditions. For example, always allow for downgrading to any previous minor release. Clear rules should make users feel safer when upgrading and perhaps encourage trying Cassandra at all. One of the things related to that is sstable format version. It consists of major and minor components and is incremented independently from Cassandra releases. One rule here is that a Cassandra release producing sstables at version XY should be able to read any sstable with version (X-1)* and X* (which means that all the minor future versions X. Perhaps we could make some commitment to change major sstable format only with new major release? What do you think? Thanks - - -- --- - - Jacek Lewandowski
Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?
On 1/13/23 05:50, Mick Semb Wever wrote: Thanks for the support Brad, you're definitely not alone. Alas the project works in a consensus model, i.e. off the objections made - which have been all sound. A good compromise has been offered that I will move forward on, and I'll also update the commented out G1 settings in 4.1.1 to match those becoming the default in trunk. +1 to G1 default in trunk and a recommendation in 4.1.1 NEWS.txt. I agree with Aleksey and others, trunk is the right place to change defaults. Kind regards, Michael
Re: CircleCI Security Incident
FYI in case you missed it, this is the latest post from CircleCI where full details and timelines around the incident and concrete latest recommendations are shared - https://circleci.com/blog/jan-4-2023-incident-report/ On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 22:45, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > FYI for visibility among our development community - > > CircleCI reports they have experienced a security incident and are asking > all users to immediately rotate any secrets stored in CircleCI (environment > variables, object storage credentials, etc). They’re also recommending > monitoring any internal systems for unauthorized access from December 21. > > Details: https://circleci.com/blog/january-4-2023-security-alert/ > > — Scott
