[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12104?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15363257#comment-15363257
]
Jeremiah Jordan commented on CASSANDRA-12104:
---------------------------------------------
bq. I also wonder if there are cases where people abuse the inter-dc idiom to
separate things that don't actually have a lot of latency between them.
Yes, people do this often, but usually to seperate different workloads. Like
you make a "DC" to run all your Spark jobs against that is in the same physical
location as your DC servicing normal application traffic.
> 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)
