Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A71FDE50 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 85476 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2012 03:43:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 84782 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2012 03:43:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 84711 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2012 03:43:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FSL_RCVD_USER,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tivv00@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.44] (HELO mail-pb0-f44.google.com) (209.85.160.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:02 +0000 Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so1388891pbb.31 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:42:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7LXHn+C9Rr2loi72DI38Wio4VKl3JFTzZ9uuN12GOXU=; b=NSuExSerCv6T4O25jXi2974zquwcAuQOxlu5upz+Dc7YKNUKdmxZExhe4YXQn57XRA Xva4kikDdUvZRn8ubSRg9IUHdee78WZZ2BSK+evDmLEvmb8C6LS6NC+Jyl+/7rlXrw+q b4sEclnEqUJvfksqoZWTTQtrLZh+45Ya1BmE78BY2bkVYtT6izqlGS2FKy4r2jLV6TNZ PO/dk+gZBUGCYgyS3KaTMTootruc9KjzF4tOh4XXuZ1lNxwuVoxSzE8lSBDi4++6Ucbm vKH11Jblz7Iz8dwcvSyGK3Aie7Rt5thCUoMnfekoX/DNHhWglr1xLFB+z0JLsCaZ2uzA qMqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.116.232 with SMTP id jz8mr3885350pbb.77.1348026161425; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.252.197 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:42:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <95A58592-F2C5-4BE2-BCCE-F852AF27A228@thelastpickle.com> <0901B9F6-D723-4ADD-9B24-75FB1D630940@thelastpickle.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:42:41 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Disk configuration in new cluster node From: =?KOI8-U?B?96bUwcymyiD0yc3eydvJzg==?= To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff242db7fed6204ca05cc0d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8ff242db7fed6204ca05cc0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Network also matters. It would take a lot of time sending 6TB over 1Gb link, even fully saturating it. IMHO You can try with 10Gb, but you will need to raise your streaming/compaction limits a lot. Also you will need to ensure that your compaction can keep up. It is often done in one thread and I am not sure if it will be enough for you. As of parallel compaction, I don't know exact limitations and if it will be working in your case. 2012/9/18 Casey Deccio > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:54 AM, aaron morton wrote: > >> each with several disks having large capacity, totaling 10 - 12 TB. Is >> this (another) bad idea? >> >> Yes. Very bad. >> If you had 6TB on average system with spinning disks you would measure >> duration of repairs and compactions in days. >> >> If you want to store 12 TB of data you will need more machines. >> >> > > Would it help if I partitioned the computing resources of my physical > machines into VMs? For example, I put four VMs on each of three virtual > machines, each with a dedicated 2TB drive. I can now have four tokens in > the ring and a RF of 3. And of course, I can arrange them into a way that > makes the most sense. Is this getting any better, or am I missing the > point? > > Casey > -- Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn --e89a8ff242db7fed6204ca05cc0d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network also matters. It would take a lot of time sending 6TB over 1Gb link= , even fully saturating it. IMHO You can try with 10Gb, but you will need t= o raise your streaming/compaction limits a lot.
Also you will need to e= nsure that your compaction can keep up. It is often done in one thread and = I am not sure if it will be enough for you. As of parallel compaction, I do= n't know exact limitations and if it will be working in your case.

2012/9/18 Casey Deccio <= ;casey@deccio.net= >
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:54 AM, aaron morton <a= aron@thelastpickle.com> wrote:
each with several disks having large capacity, totaling = 10 - 12 TB. =A0Is this (another) bad idea?
Yes. Very bad.=A0
If you had 6TB on average system with spinning disks = you would measure duration of repairs and compactions in days.=A0

If you want to store 12 TB of data you will need more machi= nes.=A0
=A0

Would it h= elp if I partitioned the computing resources of my physical machines into V= Ms? =A0For example, I put four VMs on each of three virtual machines, each = with a dedicated 2TB drive. =A0I can now have four tokens in the ring and a= RF of 3. =A0And of course, I can arrange them into a way that makes the mo= st sense. =A0Is this getting any better, or am I missing the point?

Casey



--
Best regards= ,
=A0Vitalii Tymchyshyn
--e89a8ff242db7fed6204ca05cc0d--