cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus Eriksson (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6621) STCS fallback is not optimal when bootstrapping
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2014 02:50:01 GMT


Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-6621:

bq. We might want to also stream the stable level and can put stables coming from same level
in one level on the bootstrapping node. The problem with this will be that we might end up
with very few stable in higher levels violating the constrain that only last level can be
less than limit.

This should be fine for short periods of time right? Problem will be that it will take a long
time until the highest level gets compacted. What if we detect that, and include a couple
of those high level sstables in lower lever compactions until the higher level is empty or
starts doing real compactions?

> STCS fallback is not optimal when bootstrapping
> -----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6621
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Bartłomiej Romański
>            Priority: Minor
> The initial discussion started in (closed) CASSANDRA-5371. I've rewritten my last comment
> After streaming (e.g. during boostrap) Cassandra places all sstables at L0. At the end
of the process we end up with huge number of sstables at the lowest level. 
> Currently, Cassandra falls back to STCS until the number of sstables at L0 reaches the
reasonable level (32 or something).
> I'm not sure if falling back to STCS is the best way to handle this particular situation.
I've read the comment in the code and I'm aware why it is a good thing to do if we have to
many sstables at L0 as a result of too many random inserts. We have a lot of sstables, each
of them covers the whole ring, there's simply no better option.
> However, after the bootstrap situation looks a bit different. The loaded sstables already
have very small ranges! We just have to tidy up a bit and everything should be OK. STCS ignores
that completely and after a while we have a bit less sstables but each of them covers the
whole ring instead of just a small part. I believe that in that case letting LCS do the job
is a better option that allowing STCS mix everything up before.
> Is there a way to disable STCS fallback? I'd like to test that scenario in practice during
our next bootstrap...
> Does Cassandra really have to put streamed sstables at L0? The only thing we have to
assure is that sstables at any given level do not overlap. If we stream different regions
from different nodes how can we get any overlaps?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message