[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12104?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15362749#comment-15362749
]
Ariel Weisberg edited comment on CASSANDRA-12104 at 7/5/16 5:00 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
How were you able to tell they had a positive effect on inter-dc traffic if you
were experiencing a negative impact to intra-dc traffic? What is the metric you
are using?
was (Author: aweisberg):
How were you able to tell they had a positive on inter-dc traffic if you were
experiencing a negative impact to intra-dc traffic? What is the metric you are
using?
> Handle coalesce efforts for inter-dc traffic discretely from intra-dc traffic
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-12104
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12104
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Thom Valley
> Priority: Minor
>
> In relationship to CASSANDRA-8692, we have discovered that pushing coalescing
> windows to the point where they have a positive impact on inter-dc traffic
> overhead appears to have causes delays in intra-dc traffic (namely, quorum
> requests between nodes). Having the same coalescing strategy apply to all
> messages (especially intra-dc request/response messages) seems like a bad
> idea.
> This was in a 5 DC environment with from 30 to 130 ms of latency between the
> DCs. Local network was entirely unrestricted 10G ethernet.
> Being able to apply different coalescing rules to those two classifications
> of traffic would allow much more effective tuning of the coalescing
> strategies, save inter-dc bandwidth while not having any impact on intra-dc
> message handling.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
