+1 to fallback and like I said before removing PFS is a good idea as long it is safe
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:09 PM J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Do you have a specific gossip bug that you have seen recently which caused >> a problem that would make this happen? Do you have a specific JIRA in mind? > > > Sankalp linked a few others, but also > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13700 > > >> “We can’t remove this because what if there is a bug” doesn’t seem like >> a good enough reason to me. If that was a reason we would never make any >> changes to anything. >> > > How about "we know that certain fields that are gossiped go missing even > after all of the known races are fixed, so removing an existing > low-maintenance feature and forcing users to rely on gossip for topology > may be worth some discussion". > > >> I think many people have seen PFS actually cause real problems, where with >> GPFS the issue being talked about is predicated on some theoretical gossip >> bug happening. >> > > How many of those were actually caused by incorrect fallback from GPFS to > PFS, rather than PFS itself? > > >> In the past year at DataStax we have done a lot of testing on 3.0 and 3.11 >> around adding nodes, adding DC’s, replacing nodes, replacing racks, and >> replacing DC’s, all while using GPFS, and as far as I know we have not seen >> any “lost” rack/DC information during such testing. >> > > I've also run very large GPFS clusters in the past without much gossip > pain, and I'm in the "we should deprecate PFS" camp, but it is also true > that PFS is low maintenance and mostly works. Perhaps the first step is > breaking the GPFS->PFS fallback that people don't know about, maybe that'll > help? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
