cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From vineet daniel <vineetdan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: compare cassandra read n write results
Date Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:51:01 GMT
I dont think it would be a good idea not to use pandra for benchmarks as we
are going to use pandra for our application. Secondly, it will give Pandra
guys some boost to enhance the performance of thier library.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Jordan Pittier <jordan.pittier@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
> If you really want to benchmark your box, you should concidere not using
> Pandra nor any library built upon Thrift. They all come with a (small)
> overhead.
>
> I also realized when I made my first benchmark that most of my box's
> ressources was used by the benchmarking tool it self and not by Canssandra.
> I recommend using 2 boxes if possible, one for running the benchmark tool
> against the other which will run Cassandra (both boxes have to be in the
> same LAN).
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, vineet daniel <vineetdaniel@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> A little while ago I tried cassandra's read n write operations and timed
>> it.
>> I am using Pandra for communication with cassandra. System is CentOS 5
>> with 2 GB RAM and dual core.
>>
>> I inserted 100000 rows in around 30 secs and read the same in 25 seconds.
>>
>> If anyone of you have run similar tests can you please share or tell
>> whether this can be improved or not. I am using default configuration of
>> cassandra and its a single node setup.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vineet Daniel
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message