Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?
+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 <jjirsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:09 PM J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jordan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 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
>> “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
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx