Re: Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Peter Schuller
> No it's not just the cli tool, our app has the same issue coming back with > read issues. You are supposed to not be able to read it. But you should be getting a proper error, not an empty result. -- / Peter Schuller (@scode, http://worldmodscode.wordpress.com)

Re: Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Brandon Williams
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Anthony Ikeda wrote: > This is the setup: > Cassandra 0.8.6 > 3 nodes > Keyspace: NetworkTopologyStrategy, 1DC, RF=2 > > 1 node goes down and we cannot read from the ring. > > My expectation is that LOCAL_QUORUM dictates that it will return a record > once a major

Re: Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Anthony Ikeda
No it's not just the cli tool, our app has the same issue coming back with read issues. Sent from my iPhone On 18/11/2011, at 15:04, Peter Schuller wrote: >> Keyspace: NetworkTopologyStrategy, 1DC, RF=2 >> >> 1 node goes down and we cannot read from the ring. >> >> My expectation is that LO

Re: Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Peter Schuller
>> My expectation is that LOCAL_QUORUM dictates that it will return a record >> once a majority (N/2 +1) of replicas reports back. > > Yes, the RF and the number of hosts that are up within the replica set > of the row in question is what matters. And note that this is for fundamental reasons. A

Re: Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Peter Schuller
> Keyspace: NetworkTopologyStrategy, 1DC, RF=2 > > 1 node goes down and we cannot read from the ring. > > My expectation is that LOCAL_QUORUM dictates that it will return a record > once a majority (N/2 +1) of replicas reports back. Yes, the RF and the number of hosts that are up within the repli

Local quorum reads

2011-11-18 Thread Anthony Ikeda
This is the setup: Cassandra 0.8.6 3 nodes Keyspace: NetworkTopologyStrategy, 1DC, RF=2 1 node goes down and we cannot read from the ring. My expectation is that LOCAL_QUORUM dictates that it will return a record once a majority (N/2 +1) of replicas reports back. 2/2 + 1 = 2 I originally thoug