You are of course free to reduce the min per bucket to 2.

The fundamental idea of sstables + compaction is to trade disk space
for higher write performance. For most applications this is the right
trade to make on modern hardware... I don't think you'll get very far
trying to get the 2nd without the 1st.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Terje Marthinussen
<tmarthinus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure I follow you. 4 sstables is the minimum compaction look for
>> (by default).
>> If there is 30 sstables of ~20MB sitting there because compaction is
>> behind, you
>> will compact those 30 sstables together (unless there is not enough space
>> for
>> that and considering you haven't changed the max compaction threshold (32
>> by
>> default)). And you can increase max threshold.
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending this works better than it does, but
>> let's not pretend either that it's worth than it is.
>>
>
> Sorry, I am not trying to pretend anything or blow it out of proportions.
> Just reacting to what I see.
> This is what I see after some stress testing of some pretty decent HW.
> 81     Up     Normal  181.6 GB        8.33%   Token(bytes[30])
>
> 82     Up     Normal  501.43 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[313230])
>
> 83     Up     Normal  248.07 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[313437])
>
> 84     Up     Normal  349.64 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[313836])
>
> 85     Up     Normal  511.55 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[323336])
>
> 86     Up     Normal  654.93 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[333234])
>
> 87     Up    Normal  534.77 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[333939])
>
> 88     Up   Normal  525.88 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[343739])
>
> 89     Up     Normal  476.6 GB        8.33%   Token(bytes[353730])
>
> 90     Up     Normal  424.89 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[363635])
>
> 91     Up     Normal  338.14 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[383036])
>
> 92     Up     Normal  546.95 GB       8.33%   Token(bytes[6a])
> .81 has been exposed to a full compaction. It had ~370GB before that and the
> resulting sstable is 165GB.
> The other nodes has only been doing minor compactions
> I think this is a problem.
> You are of course free to disagree.
> I do however recommend doing a simulation on potential worst case scenarios
> if many of the buckets end up with 3 sstables and don't compact for a while.
> The disk space requirements  get pretty bad even without getting into
> theoretical worst cases.
> Regards,
> Terje



-- 
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support
http://www.datastax.com

Reply via email to