[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5727?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jonathan Ellis resolved CASSANDRA-5727.
---------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 1.2.9
Reviewer: jbellis
bq. Based upon the data from this experiment an LCS file size of 160MB would be
an optimal default value.
Thanks, Daniel. Done in d2f43e41cad76fccc666b0d90ef9a20df221e22e.
bq. did you tried to measure standard compaction strategy to see if 160 MB LCS
brings improvements?
Did you look at the graphs? I don't see how a control of STCS would tell us
anything new.
> Evaluate default LCS sstable size
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-5727
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5727
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Daniel Meyer
> Fix For: 1.2.9
>
> Attachments: BytesRead_vs_LCS.png, ReadLatency_vs_LCS.png,
> Throughtput_vs_LCS.png, UpdateLatency_vs_LCS.png
>
>
> What we're not sure about is the effect on compaction efficiency --
> larger files mean that each level contains more data, so reads will
> have to touch less sstables, but we're also compacting less unchanged
> data when we merge forward.
> So the question is, how big can we make the sstables to get the benefits of
> the
> first effect, before the second effect starts to dominate?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
