Great!
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Paul Prescod <pres...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Tatu Saloranta <tsalora...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Ilya Maykov <ivmay...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> That does sound similar. It's possible that the difference I'm seeing >>>> between ConsistencyLevel.ZERO and ConsistencyLevel.ALL is simply due >>>> to the fact that using ALL slows down the writers enough that the GC >>>> can keep up. >>> >>> No, it's mostly due to ZERO meaning "buffer this locally and write it >>> when it's convenient," and buffering takes memory. If you check your >>> tpstats you will see the pending ops through the roof on the node >>> handling the thrift connections. >> >> This sounds like a great FAQ entry? (apologies if it's already included) >> So that ideally users would only use this setting if they (think they) >> know what they are doing. :-) > > I added this note to the API docs: > > * ConsistencyLevel.ZERO: Ensure nothing. A write happens > asynchronously in background. If too many of these queue up, buffers > will explode and bad things will happen. > > Apologies if I violated any community conventions. I'm happy to fix > the text if someone has a better suggestion. > > Paul Prescod >
