[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14182150#comment-14182150
]
Michael Shuler commented on CASSANDRA-8177:
-------------------------------------------
The 2.0 branch will probably not get any invasive changes that would
drastically affect this known issue. The 2.1 branch includes repair
improvements, and the 3.0 branch will continue to try to make more performance
enhancements. Have you tried 2.1 or tested trunk(3.0)?
> sequential repair is much more expensive than parallel repair
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-8177
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8177
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sean Bridges
> Attachments: iostats.png
>
>
> This is with 2.0.10
> The attached graph shows io read/write throughput (as measured with iostat)
> when doing repairs.
> The large hump on the left is a sequential repair of one node. The two much
> smaller peaks on the right are parallel repairs.
> This is a 3 node cluster using vnodes (I know vnodes on small clusters isn't
> recommended). Cassandra reports load of 40 gigs.
> We noticed a similar problem with a larger cluster.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
