cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manoj Mainali <mainalima...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra Evaluation/ Benchmarking: Throughput not scaling as expected neither latency showing good numbers
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:05:41 GMT
Is the "Threads" in your data the number of clients? How much heap space
does each node have?

YCSB has a paper on their benchmark tests. You can try comparing your
result with theirs and see if you have similarity.

Best regards,
Manoj


On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Code Box wrote:

> I am doing Cassandra Benchmarking using YCSB for evaluating the best
> performance for my application which will be both read and write intensive.
> I have set up a three cluster environment on EC2 and i am using YCSB in the
> same availability region as a client. I have tried various combinations of
> tuning cassandra parameters like FSync ( Setting to batch and periodic ),
> Increasing the number of rpc_threads, increasing number of concurrent reads
> and concurrent writes, write consistency one and Quorum i am not getting
> very great results and also i do not see a linear graph in terms of
> scalability that is if i increase the number of clients i do not see an
> increase in the throughput.
>
> Here are some sample numbers that i got :-
>
> *Test 1:-  Write Consistency set to Quorum Write Proportion = 100%. FSync
> = Batch and Window = 0ms*
>
> ThreadsThroughput ( write per sec ) Avg Latency (ms)TP95(ms) TP99(ms)
> Min(ms)Max(ms)
>
>
>  102149 3.1984 51.499291   1004070 23.82870 2.2260    2004151 45.96571301.7
> 1242     300419764.68 1154222.09 216
>
>
> If you look at the numbers the number of threads do not increase the
> throughput. Also the latency values are not that great. I am using fsync
> set to batch and with 0 ms window.
>
> *Test 2:- ** Write Consistency set to Quorum Write Proportion = 100%.
> FSync = Periodic and Window = 1000 ms*
> *
> *
> 1803 1.23712 1.012312.9Q 10015944 5.343925 1.21579.1Q 200196309.047 1970
> 1.17 1851Q
> Are these numbers expected numbers or does Cassandra perform better ? Am i
> missing something ?
>

Mime
View raw message