Fw: read request is slow

2019-03-18 Thread ishib...@gmail.com 
Hi!This is interesting note for me.We have C* 3.11.1, but ‘sjk’ still  unexpected parameters for nodetool utility.Am I  missed something or ‘sjk’ available as separate rpm-package?Best regards, Ilya

Тема: Re: read request is slow
От: Dieudonné Madishon NGAYA 
Кому: user@cassandra.apache.org
Копия: 


























For your information,since cassandra 3.0, it includes ttop and other options inside sjk



nodetool sjk


https://docs.datastax.com/en/cassandra/3.0/cassandra/tools/toolsSjk.html

































 


 








 
From: Jon Haddad
 [mailto:j...@jonhaddad.com]

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 5:25 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: read request is slow
 

I'm guessing you're getting 100MB from the comments in the config, which suggest 100MB per core.  This advice is pretty outdated and should be updated.

 


I'd use 8GB total heap and 4GB new gen as a starting point.  I really suggest reading up on how GC works, I linked to a post in an earlier email.


 


These are the flags you'd need to set in your jvm.options, or jvm-server.options depending on the version you're using:


 


-Xmx8G


-Xms8G


-Xmn4G


 


1 core is probably going to be a problem, Cassandra creates a lot of threads and relies on doing work concurrently.  I wouldn't use less than 8 cores in a production
 environment.













---
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by telephone or by e-mail and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Correspondence via e-mail is for information purposes only. AO Raiffeisenbank neither makes nor accepts legally binding statements by e-mail unless otherwise agreed. 
---


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.

2019-02-13 Thread ishib...@gmail.com 
Hi Jeff,If increase the value, it will affect only newly created indexes. Will repair rebuilds old indexes with new , larger, size, or leave them with the same size?Best regards, Ilya Исходное сообщение Тема: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.От: Jeff Jirsa Кому: user@cassandra.apache.orgКопия: We build an index on each partition as we write it - in 3.0 it’s a list that relates the clustering columns for a given partition key to a point in the file. When you read, we use that index to skip to the point at the beginning of your read.That 64k value is just a default that few people ever have reason to change - it’s somewhat similar to the 64k compression chunk size, though they’re not aligned.If you increase the value from 64k to 128k, you’ll have half as many index markers per partition. This means when you use the index, you’ll do a bit more IO to find the actual start of your result. However, it also means you have half as many index objects created in the heap on reads - for many uses cases with wife partitions, the indexinfo objects on reads create far too much garbage and cause bad latency/gc. This just gives you a way to trade off between the two options - disk IO or gc pauses.-- Jeff JirsaOn Feb 13, 2019, at 10:45 PM, "ishib...@gmail.com" <ishib...@gmail.com> wrote:Hello!increase column_index_size_in_kb for rarely index creations, am I correct?But will it be used in every read request, or column index for queries within a row only?Best regards, Ilya Исходное сообщение Тема: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.От: Jeff Jirsa Кому: user@cassandra.apache.orgКопия: Cassandra-11206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11206) is in 3.11 and does have a few knobs to make this less painfulYou can also increase the column index size from 64kb to something significantly higher to decrease the cost of those reads on the JVM (shifting cost to the disk) - consider 256k or 512k for 100-1000mb partitions.-- Jeff JirsaOn Feb 13, 2019, at 5:48 AM, Durity, Sean R <sean_r_dur...@homedepot.com> wrote:







Agreed. It’s pretty close to impossible to administrate your way out of a data model that doesn’t play to Cassandra’s strengths. Which is true for other data
 storage technologies – you need to model the data the way that the engine is designed to work.
 
 
Sean Durity
 
From: DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:08 AM
To: user <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.
 


Plain answer is NO

 


There is a slight hope that the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754
 gets into 4.0 release


 


But right now, there seems to be few interest in this ticket, the last comment 23/Feb/2017 old ...


 



 


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:18 PM Vsevolod Filaretov <vsfilare...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi all,

 


The question.


 


We have Cassandra 3.11.1 with really heavy primary partitions:


cfhistograms 95%% is 130+ mb, 95%% cell count is 3.3mln and higher, 98%% partition size is 220+ mb sometimes partitions are 1+ gb. We have regular problems with node lockdowns leading to read request timeouts under read requests load.


 


Changing primary partition key structure is out of question.


 


Are there any sharding techniques available to dilute partitions at level lower than 'select' requests to make read performance better? Without changing read requests syntax?


 


Thank you all in advance,


Vsevolod Filaretov.








The information in this Internet Email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
 or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this Email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable governing The
 Home Depot terms of business or client engagement letter. The Home Depot disclaims all responsibility and liability for the accuracy and content of this attachment and for any damages or losses arising from any inaccuracies, errors, viruses, e.g., worms, trojan
 horses, etc., or other items of a destructive nature, which may be contained in this attachment and shall not be liable for direct, indirect, consequential or special damages in connection with this e-mail message or its attachment.



ТÐÐ¥FòVç7V'67&–ÂRÖÖ–âW6W"×Vç7V'67&–676æG&æ6†Ræ÷Фf÷"FF—F–öæÂ6öÖÖæG2ÂRÖÖ–âW6W"Ö†VÇ676æG&æ6†Ræ÷Ð

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.

2019-02-13 Thread ishib...@gmail.com 
Hello!increase column_index_size_in_kb for rarely index creations, am I correct?But will it be used in every read request, or column index for queries within a row only?Best regards, Ilya Исходное сообщение Тема: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.От: Jeff Jirsa Кому: user@cassandra.apache.orgКопия: Cassandra-11206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11206) is in 3.11 and does have a few knobs to make this less painfulYou can also increase the column index size from 64kb to something significantly higher to decrease the cost of those reads on the JVM (shifting cost to the disk) - consider 256k or 512k for 100-1000mb partitions.-- Jeff JirsaOn Feb 13, 2019, at 5:48 AM, Durity, Sean R  wrote:







Agreed. It’s pretty close to impossible to administrate your way out of a data model that doesn’t play to Cassandra’s strengths. Which is true for other data
 storage technologies – you need to model the data the way that the engine is designed to work.
 
 
Sean Durity
 
From: DuyHai Doan 

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:08 AM
To: user 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Make large partitons lighter on select without changing primary partition formation.
 


Plain answer is NO

 


There is a slight hope that the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754
 gets into 4.0 release


 


But right now, there seems to be few interest in this ticket, the last comment 23/Feb/2017 old ...


 



 


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:18 PM Vsevolod Filaretov  wrote:



Hi all,

 


The question.


 


We have Cassandra 3.11.1 with really heavy primary partitions:


cfhistograms 95%% is 130+ mb, 95%% cell count is 3.3mln and higher, 98%% partition size is 220+ mb sometimes partitions are 1+ gb. We have regular problems with node lockdowns leading to read request timeouts under read requests load.


 


Changing primary partition key structure is out of question.


 


Are there any sharding techniques available to dilute partitions at level lower than 'select' requests to make read performance better? Without changing read requests syntax?


 


Thank you all in advance,


Vsevolod Filaretov.








The information in this Internet Email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
 or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this Email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any applicable governing The
 Home Depot terms of business or client engagement letter. The Home Depot disclaims all responsibility and liability for the accuracy and content of this attachment and for any damages or losses arising from any inaccuracies, errors, viruses, e.g., worms, trojan
 horses, etc., or other items of a destructive nature, which may be contained in this attachment and shall not be liable for direct, indirect, consequential or special damages in connection with this e-mail message or its attachment.