Re: Upgrade from 1.0.9 to 1.2.8

[Jeremiah D Jordan <je...@gmail.com>]

> 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x?

Because this fix in 1.0.11:
* fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes >= 1.1 (CASSANDRA-4195)

-Jeremiah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Mike Neir <mi...@liquidweb.com> wrote:

> Is there anything that you can link that describes the pitfalls you mention? I'd like a bit more information. Just for clarity's sake, are you recommending 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x? Or would  1.0.9 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x suffice?
> 
> Regarding the placement strategy mentioned in a different post, I'm using the Simple placement strategy, with the RackInferringSnitch. How does that play into the bugs mentioned previously about cross-DC replication?
> 
> MN
> 
> On 08/30/2013 01:28 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote:
>> You probably want to go to 1.0.11/12 first no matter what.  If you want the least chance of issue you should then go to 1.1.12.  While there is a high probability that going from 1.0.X->1.2 will work. You have the best chance at no failures if you go through 1.1.12.  There are some edge cases that can cause errors if you don't do that.
>> 
>> -Jeremiah
>> 
>> 

Re: Upgrade from 1.0.9 to 1.2.8

[Mike Neir <mi...@liquidweb.com>]

Ah. I was going by the upgrade recommendations in the NEWS.txt file in the 
cassandra source tree, which didn't make mention of that version (1.0.11) 
whatsoever. I didn't see any show-stoppers that would have prevented me from 
going straight from 1.0.9 to 1.2.x.

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/cassandra-1.2.4

Looks like a multi-step upgrade is the way I'll be proceeding. Thanks for the 
insight, everyone.

MN

On 09/02/2013 11:04 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote:
>> 1.0.9 -> 1.0.12 -> 1.1.12 -> 1.2.x?
>
> Because this fix in 1.0.11:
> * fix 1.0.x node join to mixed version cluster, other nodes >= 1.1 (CASSANDRA-4195)
>
> -Jeremiah

-- 



Mike Neir
Liquid Web, Inc.
Infrastructure Administrator