[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17212?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17480375#comment-17480375 ]
Benedict Elliott Smith edited comment on CASSANDRA-17212 at 1/22/22, 9:19 AM: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ bq. To me grouping based off feature is the only way for a config to actually be "discoverable", pulling bits and pieces out to other places because they are "limits" would always break this in my mind. In my experience this is a near-impossible task to do consistently with an intuitive structure, as nobody really agrees what features should be called, let alone their hierarchy. For instance, once you have a {{query}} heading, should that then include coordinator level configurations? timeouts? concurrency? CQL configurations? caches? Logically it _could_ include half of the settings. Many things also don't neatly fall under any feature, so we will fabricate features for them: non-query timeouts cannot be grouped under {{query}}, so now we probably _won't_ group query timeouts under {{query}} either, else it will be inconsistent. But now both are inconsistent, there's no rules underpinning it anymore. This kind of grouping can also be more volatile - once a new setting (and suitable grouping) is introduced, it more readily affects the decisions for the existing hierarchy. This means this kind of layout probably needs a lot of upfront work to produce a coherent grouping for the whole config file, to demonstrate that it can be done in a manner everyone agrees on, and to avoid lots of churn. I think when I tried to produce groupings, your approach was what I tried initially before deciding this approach was cleaner. Plus it has the added benefit that a user that _doesn't_ know the config options (i.e. most users), when encountering instability, will have good discoverability of dials that can be modified to improve cluster health. I think this is a very underrated benefit, as most users cannot afford teams of developers that are intimately familiar with the codebase. was (Author: benedict): bq. To me grouping based off feature is the only way for a config to actually be "discoverable", pulling bits and pieces out to other places because they are "limits" would always break this in my mind. In my experience this is not only a near-impossible task, but leads to inconsistency (in both leaf-node naming and in grouping) and a non-intuitive structure, as nobody really agrees what any features should be called, and certainly not what they should be grouped under. Names and groupings are entirely arbitrary, and something that is natural to some will be unnatural to another. For instance, once you have a {{query}} heading, should that then include coordinator level configurations? timeouts? concurrency? CQL configurations? Logically it could include half of the settings. So it becomes arbitrary, and importantly much more volatile - once a new setting and suitable grouping is introduced for a new property, either the consistency is harmed or settings need to be moved to another group, much like they would with an internal API. It would also likely need to be a much bigger bang piece of work, and would likely necessitate much more disparate documentation, as the _effect_ of each setting likely needs to be described repetitiously. At the very least, anybody who wants this kind of layout needs to try producing such a coherent grouping for the whole config file, to demonstrate that it can be done, and to avoid lots of churn. TL;DR: it's messy, arbitrary and inconsistent. But if that's what everyone wants, some work needs to be done upfront to prove it can be done cleanly IMO. > Migrate threshold for minimum keyspace replication factor to guardrails > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-17212 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17212 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: Feature/Guardrails > Reporter: Andres de la Peña > Priority: Normal > > The config property > [{{minimum_keyspace_rf}}|https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5fdadb25f95099b8945d9d9ee11d3e380d3867f4/conf/cassandra.yaml] > that was added by CASSANDRA-14557 can be migrated to guardrails, for example: > {code} > guardrails: > ... > replication_factor: > warn_threshold: 2 > abort_threshold: 3 > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.1#820001) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org