> On May 13, 2017, at 7:21 AM, Yuji Ito <y...@imagine-orb.com> wrote:
by the window time.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we replace Batch entirely with this, or are there situations where
> Batch would outperform (in latency, for instance)?
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Yuji Ito <
I propose a new CommitLogService, GroupCommitLogService, to improve the
throughput when lots of requests are received.
It improved the throughput by maximum 94%.
I'd like to discuss about this CommitLogService.
Currently, we can select either 2 CommitLog services; Periodic and Batch.
hat Batch is not working as designed? If there are other
> pending writes, Batch should also group them together. (Did you test with
> giving Batch the same window size as Group?)
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Yuji Ito <y...@imagine-orb.com> wrote:
>> Batch outp
I wonder why records on the system.paxos table aren't removed, though all
records are updated with TTL (at least 3 hours).
That's because gc_grace_seconds of system.paxos table is always 0 and users
can't change that value of System keyspace!
Why is the TTL of paxos record invalidated?
Our tests are based on riptano's great work.
I refined it for the latest Jepsen and removed some tests.
Next, I'll fix clock-drift tests.
I would like to get your feedback.
> > Thanks so much for working on this! Any fault injection testing is
> > certainly worth the effort.
> > Thanks,
> > -Nate
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:36 PM Yuji Ito wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are working
investigating that issue.
That would be a great idea if our work will be included in the regular
2018年11月9日(金) 17:27 Oleksandr Shulgin :
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:42 PM Yuji Ito wrote:
> > We are working on Jepsen testing for Cassandra.
> > h
I'm investigating LWT performance with C* 3.11.3.
It looks that the performance is bounded by messaging latency when many
requests are issued concurrently.
According to the source code, the number of messaging threads per node is
only 1 thread for incoming and 1 thread for outbound "small"
ing Netty in 4.0. It will be better to
> test it using that as potential changes will mostly land on top of that.
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:39 AM Yuji Ito wrote:
>> I'm investigating LWT performance with C* 3.11.3.
>> It looks that the performance is
Mail list logo