Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:12:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Melvin Wang (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: commits@cassandra.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <782836416.9202.1309543948745.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <758841279.35176.1308878027339.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-2819) Split rpc timeout for read and
 write ops
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2819?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13058684#comment-13058684 ] 

Melvin Wang commented on CASSANDRA-2819:
----------------------------------------

how about add the creation timestamp to the header of the message? MDT is executed nearly immediately after it is created. Thus the construction time of MDT is too close to the checkpoint we have in run(). I am just concerned with the effectiveness of the current logic in MDT, although I am not sure about the consequences of adding 4 bytes to all the messages we created.

> Split rpc timeout for read and write ops
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2819
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2819
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Stu Hood
>            Assignee: Melvin Wang
>             Fix For: 1.0
>
>         Attachments: twttr-cassandra-0.8-counts-resync-rpc-rw-timeouts.diff
>
>
> Given the vastly different latency characteristics of reads and writes, it makes sense for them to have independent rpc timeouts internally.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira