RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
The consistency ALL was only for my testing so there could be a logical explanation to this. We use LOCAL_QUORUM in prod. Original message From: Jack Krupansky Date: 3/23/2016 4:56 PM (GMT-08:00) To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Rack aware question. CL=ALL also

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Jonathan Haddad
t; otherwise, it is done before returning the data.” >> >> >> >> I set consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. >> >> >> >> *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM &g

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Jack Krupansky
” > > > > I set consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. > > > > *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM > > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* RE: Rack aware question. &g

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
consistency to ALL, and now I can get data all the time. From: Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:14 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Rack aware question. Thanks, Read repair is what I thought must be causing this, so I experimented some

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
should document it better ? Thanks ! From: Paulo Motta [mailto:pauloricard...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:40 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Rack aware question. > How come 127.0.0.1 is shown as an endpoint holding the ID when its token > range doesn’t cont

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Paulo Motta
his ever, I’d think the ignore_rack flag > should just be deprecated. > > > > *From:* Robert Coli [mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:54 PM > > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Rack aware question. > > > > Actual

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
want to support this ever, I’d think the ignore_rack flag should just be deprecated. From: Robert Coli [mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:54 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Rack aware question. Actually, I believe you are seeing the behavior described in

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Robert Coli
rom racktest.racktable where id=1” > > > > *From:* Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:04 PM > *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org > *Subject:* RE: Rack aware question. > > > > Thanks. > > > > To test what happens

RE: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Anubhav Kale
Oh, and the query I ran was “select * from racktest.racktable where id=1” From: Anubhav Kale [mailto:anubhav.k...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:04 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Rack aware question. Thanks. To test what happens when rack of a node changes in a

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Robert Coli
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Anubhav Kale wrote: > Suppose we change the racks on VMs on a running cluster. (We need to do > this while running on Azure, because sometimes when the VM gets moved its > rack changes). > > In this situation, new writes will be laid out based on new rack info on

Re: Rack aware question.

2016-03-23 Thread Clint Martin
I could be wrong on this since I've never actually attempted what you are asking. Based on my understanding of how replica assignment is done, I don't think that just changing the rack on an existing node is a good idea. Changing racks for a node that already contains data would result in that dat