AssertionError: DecoratedKey(... ) != DecoratedKey (...)

2013-10-06 Thread Ran Tavory
Pardon me, now with the appropriate subject line... Hi, I have a small cluster of 1.2.6 and after some config changes I started seeing errors int the logs. Not sure that's related, but the changes I performed were to disable hinted handoff and disable auto snapshot. I'll try to reverte these,

Re: AssertionError: DecoratedKey(... ) != DecoratedKey (...)

2013-10-06 Thread Ran Tavory
Update: I've reverted hinted_handoff_enabled back to its default value of true and the errors stopped. Is this just a coincidence, or could be related? On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Ran Tavory ran...@gmail.com wrote: Pardon me, now with the appropriate subject line... Hi, I have a small

AssertionError: DecoratedKey(...) != DecoratedKey(...)

2010-04-15 Thread Ran Tavory
When restarting one of the nodes in my cluster I found this error in the log. What does this mean? INFO [GC inspection] 2010-04-15 05:03:04,898 GCInspector.java (line 110) GC for ConcurrentMarkSweep: 712 ms, 11149016 reclaimed leaving 442336680 used; max is 4432068608 ERROR

Re: AssertionError: DecoratedKey(...) != DecoratedKey(...)

2010-04-15 Thread Gary Dusbabek
Ran, It looks like you're seeing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-866. It's fixed in 0.6.1. Gary On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:06, Ran Tavory ran...@gmail.com wrote: When restarting one of the nodes in my cluster I found this error in the log. What does this mean?  INFO [GC

Re: AssertionError: DecoratedKey(...) != DecoratedKey(...)

2010-04-15 Thread Ran Tavory
yes, this looks like the same issue, thanks Gary. Other than seeing the errors in the log I haven't seen any other irregularities. (maybe there are, but they haven't surfaced). Does this assertion mean data corruption or something else that's worth waiting to 0.6.1 for? On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at

Re: AssertionError: DecoratedKey(...) != DecoratedKey(...)

2010-04-15 Thread Gary Dusbabek
No data corruption. There was a bug in the way that the index was scanned that was manifesting itself when when the index got bigger than 2GB. Gary. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 08:03, Ran Tavory ran...@gmail.com wrote: yes, this looks like the same issue, thanks Gary. Other than seeing the