Same behavior here with a very different setup.After an upgrade to 2.1.14 (from
2.0.17) I see a high load and many NTR "all time blocked". Offheap memtable
lowered the blocked NTR for me, I put a comment on CASSANDRA-11363
Best,
Romain
Le Mercredi 13 juillet 2016 20h18, Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> a
écrit :
Sometimes, the Pending can change from 128 to 129, 125 etc.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
$nodetool tpstats
...Pool Name Active Pending Completed
Blocked All time blocked
Native-Transport-Requests 128 128 1420623949 1
142821509
...
What is this? Is it normal?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
Here is the result:
ubuntu@ip-172-31-44-250:~$ iostat -dmx 2 10Linux 3.13.0-74-generic
(ip-172-31-44-250) 07/12/2016 _x86_64_ (4 CPU)
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.01 2.13
0.74 1.55 0.01 0.02 27.77 0.00 0.74 0.89 0.66
0.43 0.10xvdf 0.01 0.58 237.41 52.50 12.90 6.21
135.02 2.32 8.01 3.65 27.72 0.57 16.63
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 7.50
0.00 2.50 0.00 0.04 32.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 1.60
1.60 0.40xvdf 0.00 0.00 353.50 0.00 24.12 0.00
139.75 0.49 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.58 20.60
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 2.00 463.50 35.00 30.69 2.86
137.84 0.88 1.77 1.29 8.17 0.60 30.00
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 0.00 99.50 36.00 8.54 4.40
195.62 1.55 3.88 1.45 10.61 1.06 14.40
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 5.00
0.00 1.50 0.00 0.03 34.67 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.33
1.33 0.20xvdf 0.00 1.50 703.00 195.00 48.83 23.76
165.57 6.49 8.36 1.66 32.51 0.55 49.80
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.04 72.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 2.50 149.50 69.50 10.12 6.68
157.14 0.74 3.42 1.18 8.23 0.51 11.20
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 5.00
0.00 2.50 0.00 0.03 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 0.00 61.50 22.50 5.36 2.75
197.64 0.33 3.93 1.50 10.58 0.88 7.40
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 0.00 375.00 0.00 24.84 0.00
135.64 0.45 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.57 21.20
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 1.00
0.00 6.00 0.00 0.03 9.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 0.00 542.50 23.50 35.08 2.83
137.16 0.80 1.41 1.15 7.23 0.49 28.00
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %utilxvda 0.00 3.50
0.50 1.50 0.00 0.02 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00xvdf 0.00 1.50 272.00 153.50 16.18 18.67
167.73 14.32 33.66 1.39 90.84 0.81 34.60
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
When you have high system load it means your CPU is waiting for *something*,
and in my experience it's usually slow disk. A disk connected over network has
been a culprit for me many times.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
Can do you do:
iostat -dmx 2 10
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
The read being low is because we do not have much read operations right now.
The heap is only 4GB.
MAX_HEAP_SIZE=4GB
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com> wrote:
EBS iops scale with volume size. A 600G EBS volume only guarantees 1800 iops –
if you’re exhausting those on writes, you’re going to suffer on reads. You have
a 16G server, and probably a good chunk of that allocated to heap.
Consequently, you have almost no page cache, so your reads are going to hit the
disk. Your reads being very low is not uncommon if you have no page cache – the
default settings for Cassandra (64k compression chunks) are really inefficient
for small reads served off of disk. If you drop the compression chunk size (4k,
for example), you’ll probably see your read throughput increase significantly,
which will give you more iops for commitlog, so write throughput likely goes
up, too. From: Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com>
Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 6:54 PM
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Is my cluster normal? What's your CPU looking like? If it's low,
check your IO with iostat or dstat. I know some people have used Ebs and say
it's fine but ive been burned too many times. On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:12 PM
Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
Hi Riccardo, Very low IO-wait. About 0.3%.No stolen CPU. It is a casssandra
only instance. I did not see any dropped messages.
ubuntu@cassandra1:/mnt/data$ nodetool tpstatsPool Name
Active Pending Completed Blocked All time blockedMutationStage
1 1 929509244 0
0ViewMutationStage 0 0 0 0
0ReadStage 4 0 4021570 0
0RequestResponseStage 0 0 731477999
0 0ReadRepairStage 0 0
165603 0 0CounterMutationStage 0 0
0 0 0MiscStage 0
0 0 0 0CompactionExecutor
2 55 92022 0 0MemtableReclaimMemory
0 0 1736 0
0PendingRangeCalculator 0 0 6 0
0GossipStage 0 0 345474 0
0SecondaryIndexManagement 0 0 0
0 0HintsDispatcher 0 0
4 0 0MigrationStage 0 0
35 0 0MemtablePostFlush 0
0 1973 0 0ValidationExecutor
0 0 0 0 0Sampler
0 0 0 0
0MemtableFlushWriter 0 0 1736 0
0InternalResponseStage 0 0 5311 0
0AntiEntropyStage 0 0 0
0 0CacheCleanupExecutor 0 0
0 0 0Native-Transport-Requests 128 128
347508531 2 15891862 Message type DroppedREAD
0RANGE_SLICE 0_TRACE
0HINT 0MUTATION 0COUNTER_MUTATION
0BATCH_STORE 0BATCH_REMOVE
0REQUEST_RESPONSE 0PAGED_RANGE 0READ_REPAIR
0 On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Riccardo Ferrari
<ferra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Yuan, You machine instance is 4 vcpus that is 4 threads (not cores!!!),
aside from any Cassandra specific discussion a system load of 10 on a 4 threads
machine is way too much in my opinion. If that is the running average system
load I would look deeper into system details. Is that IO wait? Is that CPU
Stolen? Is that a Cassandra only instance or are there other processes pushing
the load?What does your "nodetool tpstats" say? Hoe many dropped messages do
you have? Best, On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Yuan Fang
<y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
Thanks Ben! For the post, it seems they got a little better but similar result
than i did. Good to know it. I am not sure if a little fine tuning of heap
memory will help or not. On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ben Slater
<ben.sla...@instaclustr.com> wrote:
Hi Yuan, You might find this blog post a useful
comparison:https://www.instaclustr.com/blog/2016/01/07/multi-data-center-apache-spark-and-apache-cassandra-benchmark/
Although the focus is on Spark and Cassandra and multi-DC there are also some
single DC benchmarks of m4.xl clusters plus some discussion of how we went
about benchmarking. CheersBen On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 at 07:52 Yuan Fang
<y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
Yes, here is my stress test result: Results:op rate : 12200
[WRITE:12200]partition rate : 12200 [WRITE:12200]row rate
: 12200 [WRITE:12200]latency mean : 16.4 [WRITE:16.4]latency
median : 7.1 [WRITE:7.1]latency 95th percentile : 38.1
[WRITE:38.1]latency 99th percentile : 204.3 [WRITE:204.3]latency 99.9th
percentile : 465.9 [WRITE:465.9]latency max : 1408.4
[WRITE:1408.4]Total partitions : 1000000 [WRITE:1000000]Total errors
: 0 [WRITE:0]total gc count : 0total gc mb
: 0total gc time (s) : 0avg gc time(ms) : NaNstdev gc
time(ms) : 0Total operation time : 00:01:21END On Thu, Jul 7, 2016
at 2:49 PM, Ryan Svihla <r...@foundev.pro> wrote:
Lots of variables you're leaving out. Depends on write size, if you're using
logged batch or not, what consistency level, what RF, if the writes come in
bursts, etc, etc. However, that's all sort of moot for determining "normal"
really you need a baseline as all those variables end up mattering a huge
amount. I would suggest using Cassandra stress as a baseline and go from there
depending on what those numbers say (just pick the defaults).
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 7, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Yuan Fang <y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
yes, it is about 8k writes per node. On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:18 PM, daemeon
reiydelle <daeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you saying 7k writes per node? or 30k writes per node?
.......
Daemeon C.M. Reiydelle
USA (+1) 415.501.0198
London (+44) (0) 20 8144 9872 On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Yuan Fang
<y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
writes 30k/second is the main thing. On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:51 PM, daemeon
reiydelle <daeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Assuming you meant 100k, that likely for something with 16mb of storage
(probably way small) where the data is more that 64k hence will not fit into
the row cache.
.......
Daemeon C.M. Reiydelle
USA (+1) 415.501.0198
London (+44) (0) 20 8144 9872 On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Yuan Fang
<y...@kryptoncloud.com> wrote:
I have a cluster of 4 m4.xlarge nodes(4 cpus and 16 gb memory and 600GB ssd
EBS). I can reach a cluster wide write requests of 30k/second and read request
about 100/second. The cluster OS load constantly above 10. Are those normal?
Thanks! Best, Yuan
-- ———————— Ben Slater Chief Product OfficerInstaclustr: Cassandra + Spark -
Managed | Consulting | Support+61 437 929 798
