[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10403?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14936156#comment-14936156
]
Jonathan Shook commented on CASSANDRA-10403:
--------------------------------------------
I do think it is valid, however I expect the findings to be slightly different.
The promise of G1 on smaller systems is more robust performance across a range
of workloads without manual tuning. That said, it probably won't perform as
well in terms of ops/s, etc. The question to me is really whether we are trying
to save people from the pain of not going fast enough or whether we are trying
to save them from the pain of a CMS once they start having cascading IO and
heap pressure through the system. I am very curious about our tests proving
this out as we would expect.
As an operator and a developer, I'd take an easily tuned and stable setting
over one that goes fast until it doesn't go, any day. However, some will have
already adjusted their cluster sizing around one expectation, so we'd want to
make sure to avoid surprises. With 3.0 having other changes as well to offset,
it might be a wash.
Raw performance is only part of the picture. I would like to see your results,
for sure.
> Consider reverting to CMS GC on 3.0
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10403
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10403
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Config
> Reporter: Joshua McKenzie
> Assignee: Paulo Motta
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc2
>
>
> Reference discussion on CASSANDRA-7486.
> For smaller heap sizes G1 appears to have some throughput/latency issues when
> compared to CMS. With our default max heap size at 8G on 3.0, there's a
> strong argument to be made for having CMS as the default for the 3.0 release.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
