[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7438?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14072363#comment-14072363
 ] 

Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-7438:
-------------------------------------

bq. To implement full off-heap in Java would require our own memory management 
or usage of an offheap management lib (couldn't find any straightaway).

This implementation allocates upfront a ring-buffer, after which the entries 
are allocated through a regular variant of malloc/free. Which is no different 
to using a NativeAllocator we have access to in the code base. 

Note I'm not pushing strongly for this alternative, I don't feel too strongly 
about it, I'm just clarifying.

> Serializing Row cache alternative (Fully off heap)
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-7438
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7438
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>         Environment: Linux
>            Reporter: Vijay
>            Assignee: Vijay
>              Labels: performance
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-CASSANDRA-7438.patch
>
>
> Currently SerializingCache is partially off heap, keys are still stored in 
> JVM heap as BB, 
> * There is a higher GC costs for a reasonably big cache.
> * Some users have used the row cache efficiently in production for better 
> results, but this requires careful tunning.
> * Overhead in Memory for the cache entries are relatively high.
> So the proposal for this ticket is to move the LRU cache logic completely off 
> heap and use JNI to interact with cache. We might want to ensure that the new 
> implementation match the existing API's (ICache), and the implementation 
> needs to have safe memory access, low overhead in memory and less memcpy's 
> (As much as possible).
> We might also want to make this cache configurable.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to