I've heard a couple of folks pontificate on compaction in its own
process as well, given it has such a high impact on GC. Not sure about
the value of individual tables. Interesting idea though.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've given it some thought in the past. In the end, I usually talk myself
> out of it because I think it increases the surface area for failure. That
> is, managing N processes is more difficult that managing one process. But
> if the additional failure modes are addressed, there are some interesting
> For example, having gossip in its own process would decrease the odds that
> a node is marked dead because STW GC is happening in the storage JVM. On
> the flipside, you'd need checks to make sure that the gossip process can
> recognize when the storage process has died vs just running a long GC.
> I don't know that I'd go so far as to have separate processes for
> keyspaces, etc.
> There is probably some interesting work that could be done to support the
> orgs who run multiple cassandra instances on the same node (multiple
> gossipers in that case is at least a little wasteful).
> I've also played around with using domain sockets for IPC inside of
> cassandra. I never ran a proper benchmark, but there were some throughput
> advantages to this approach.
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Carl Mueller <carl.muel...@smartthings.com>
>> GC pauses may have been improved in newer releases, since we are in 2.1.x,
>> but I was wondering why cassandra uses one jvm for all tables and
>> keyspaces, intermingling the heap for on-JVM objects.
>> ... so why doesn't cassandra spin off a jvm per table so each jvm can be
>> tuned per table and gc tuned and gc impacts not impact other tables? It
>> would probably increase the number of endpoints if we avoid having an
>> overarching query router.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org