Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC18200B32 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 03:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 39258160A35; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F3BC160A2E for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 03:57:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 93929 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2016 01:57:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list commits@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 93917 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jun 2016 01:57:21 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 01:57:21 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBC02C1F64 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:57:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 01:57:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "Dikang Gu (JIRA)" To: commits@cassandra.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6908) Dynamic endpoint snitch destabilizes cluster under heavy load MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 01:57:23 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6908?page=3Dcom.atlas= sian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D= 15321773#comment-15321773 ]=20 Dikang Gu commented on CASSANDRA-6908: -------------------------------------- We had a similar problem and we worked around it by setting the dynamic_sni= tch_badness_threshold to be 50, which dropped the P99 latency by 10X. > Dynamic endpoint snitch destabilizes cluster under heavy load > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-6908 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6908 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Configuration > Reporter: Bart=C5=82omiej Roma=C5=84ski > Assignee: Brandon Williams > Attachments: as-dynamic-snitch-disabled.png > > > We observe that with dynamic snitch disabled our cluster is much more sta= ble than with dynamic snitch enabled. > We've got a 15 nodes cluster with pretty strong machines (2xE5-2620, 64 G= B RAM, 2x480 GB SSD). We mostly do reads (about 300k/s). > We use Astyanax on client side with TOKEN_AWARE option enabled. It automa= tically direct read queries to one of the nodes responsible the given token= . > In that case with dynamic snitch disabled Cassandra always handles read l= ocally. With dynamic snitch enabled Cassandra very often decides to proxy t= he read to some other node. This causes much higher CPU usage and produces = much more garbage what results in more often GC pauses (young generation fi= lls up quicker). By "much higher" and "much more" I mean 1.5-2x. > I'm aware that higher dynamic_snitch_badness_threshold value should solve= that issue. The default value is 0.1. I've looked at scores exposed in JMX= and the problem is that our values seemed to be completely random. They ar= e between usually 0.5 and 2.0, but changes randomly every time I hit refres= h. > Of course, I can set dynamic_snitch_badness_threshold to 5.0 or something= like that, but the result will be similar to simply disabling the dynamic = switch at all (that's what we done). > I've tried to understand what's the logic behind these scores and I'm not= sure if I get the idea... > It's a sum (without any multipliers) of two components: > - ratio of recent given node latency to recent average node latency > - something called 'severity', what, if I analyzed the code correctly, is= a result of BackgroundActivityMonitor.getIOWait() - it's a ratio of "iowai= t" CPU time to the whole CPU time as reported in /proc/stats (the ratio is = multiplied by 100) > In our case the second value is something around 0-2% but varies quite he= avily every second. > What's the idea behind simply adding this two values without any multipli= ers (e.g the second one is in percentage while the first one is not)? Are w= e sure this is the best possible way of calculating the final score? > Is there a way too force Cassandra to use (much) longer samples? In our c= ase we probably need that to get stable values. The 'severity' is calculate= d for each second. The mean latency is calculated based on some magic, hard= coded values (ALPHA =3D 0.75, WINDOW_SIZE =3D 100).=20 > Am I right that there's no way to tune that without hacking the code? > I'm aware that there's dynamic_snitch_update_interval_in_ms property in t= he config file, but that only determines how often the scores are recalcula= ted not how long samples are taken. Is that correct? > To sum up, It would be really nice to have more control over dynamic snit= ch behavior or at least have the official option to disable it described in= the default config file (it took me some time to discover that we can just= disable it instead of hacking with dynamic_snitch_badness_threshold=3D1000= ). > Currently for some scenarios (like ours - optimized cluster, token aware = client, heavy load) it causes more harm than good. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)