cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yuki Morishita (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (CASSANDRA-8177) sequential repair is much more expensive than parallel repair
Date Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:00:37 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14183824#comment-14183824
] 

Yuki Morishita edited comment on CASSANDRA-8177 at 10/25/14 12:59 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing that is likely related is when snapshotting, *all* SSTables are snapshot and
opened even if the part of them are validated.
(Fixed in CASSANDRA-7024 for 2.1)


was (Author: yukim):
One more thing that is likely related is when snapshotting, *all* SSTables are snapshot and
opened even if the part of them are validated.
(Fixed in CASSANDRA-7024)

> sequential repair is much more expensive than parallel repair
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-8177
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8177
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sean Bridges
>            Assignee: Yuki Morishita
>         Attachments: cassc-week.png, iostats.png
>
>
> This is with 2.0.10
> The attached graph shows io read/write throughput (as measured with iostat) when doing
repairs.
> The large hump on the left is a sequential repair of one node.  The two much smaller
peaks on the right are parallel repairs.
> This is a 3 node cluster using vnodes (I know vnodes on small clusters isn't recommended).
 Cassandra reports load of 40 gigs.
> We noticed a similar problem with a larger cluster.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message