Jeff & Sebastian,

Thanks for the reply. There are 12 cores but in my case C* only uses one
core most of the time. *nodetool compactionstats* shows there's only one
compactor running. I can see C* process only uses one core. So I guess I
should've asked the question more clearly:

1. Is ~25 M/s a reasonable compaction throughput for one core?
2. Is there any configuration that affects single core compaction
throughput?
3. Is concurrent_compactors the only option to parallelize compaction? If
so, I guess it's the compaction strategy itself that decides when to
parallelize and when to block on one core. Then there's not much we can do
here.

Thanks.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com>
wrote:

> With SSDs, the typical recommendation is up to 0.8-1 compactor per core
> (depending on other load).  How many CPU cores do you have?
>
>
> From: Kai Wang
> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org"
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org"
> Subject: compaction throughput
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to figure out the bottleneck of compaction on my node. The
> node is CentOS 7 and has SSDs installed. The table is configured to use
> LCS. Here is my compaction related configs in cassandra.yaml:
>
> compaction_throughput_mb_per_sec: 160
> concurrent_compactors: 4
>
> I insert about 10G of data and start observing compaction.
>
> *nodetool compaction* shows most of time there is one compaction.
> Sometimes there are 3-4 (I suppose this is controlled by
> concurrent_compactors). During the compaction, I see one CPU core is 100%.
> At that point, disk IO is about 20-25 M/s write which is much lower than
> the disk is capable of. Even when there are 4 compactions running, I see
> CPU go to +400% but disk IO is still at 20-25M/s write. I use *nodetool
> setcompactionthroughput 0* to disable the compaction throttle but don't
> see any difference.
>
> Does this mean compaction is CPU bound? If so 20M/s is kinda low. Is there
> anyway to improve the throughput?
>
> Thanks.
>

Reply via email to