Hi Josh, In addition to what Donald mentioned, the RangeServer is pretty good at keeping CPUs busy. By default, there are 20 worker threads to carry out client requests. Maintenance activity (compactions and splits) happen in the background by maintenance threads. You might want to play with that value, but the default (2) should be good enough. The following property controls the number of background maintenance threads:
Hypertable.RangeServer.MaintenanceThreads - Doug On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Josh Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Doug Judd <[email protected]> wrote: > > The latest code (commit 2d901102) in the master branch of the hypertable > git > > [...] > > Hey Doug, thanks very much for pushing this out so quickly! > > I'm now really interested in running multiple RangeServers on each > machine since memory being limited and it appears like I have some > extra cpu to burn. Does this sound like a reasonable thing to try or > does a single RangeServer per machine generally make best use of n > cpus as built? > > I was thinking of starting out with four RangeServers on a 12G/8cpu > machine with something like a 2G limit per RS (and tuning > hypertable.cfg wherever it assumes configs should be set as per > numcpus.) Happily, it looks like you've prepared for this use case by > including the port in the naming of /hypertable/servers/* so I thought > I'd throw this out there. > > Cheers, > Josh > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hypertable Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
