cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David King <>
Subject Re: Effective cache size
Date Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:17:48 GMT
>> So with the row cache, that first node (the primary replica) is the one that has that
row cached, yes?
> No, it's the closest node as determined by snitch.sortByProximity.

And with the default snitch, rack-unaware placement, random partitioner, and all nodes up,
that's the primary replica, right?

> any given node X will never know whether another node Y has a row cached or not.  the
overhead for communicating that level of detail would be totally prohibitive. all caching
does is speed the read, once a request is received for data local to a given node.  no more,
no less.

Yes, that's my concern, but the details significantly affect the effective size of the cache
(in the afoorementioned case, the details place the effective size at either 6 million or
18 million, a 3x difference).

So given CL==ONE reads, only the actually read node (which will be the primary replica given
the default placement strategy and snitch) will cache the item, right? The checksum-checking
doesn't cause the row to be cached on the non-read nodes?

If I read with CL==QUORUM in an RF==3 environment, do both read nodes them cache the item,
or only the primary replica?
View raw message