Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 3069 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2010 19:10:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 26 Nov 2010 19:10:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 42542 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2010 19:10:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 42434 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2010 19:10:25 -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 42426 invoked by uid 99); 26 Nov 2010 19:10:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:10:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cbalvarez@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.44] (HELO mail-qw0-f44.google.com) (209.85.216.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:10:17 +0000 Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so1102288qwg.31 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:09:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1DHor3/lK3qnk0K1oIE/J3gjq88aj9eAxS0B8kyH5tQ=; b=Fdzs7vhVTXsfRf/QSNqDSLiSCWMesJK6OsrfADF3XsxozHd5Tvty3DifQXHLJ0/ZBI BFdxBiyBwG2E1VeTkxo2cMIwDp/JddzSCYZD6Fy9eKUvPyFMZWVRmTiJIh01hjwSGNNg Rhehv+1EV74MthVhdPFaYhIG/AhXhzF8Q3TSE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=maIbDB/JPbEcPDzirNhIoLwsuojxBfJbkA3/Y2jalIoZZ1N+AIOk2ZOre90LU7GBf8 yb8RBYHVw1DGS5vHxdPe58bESW7vkpV/ie0U4OH6uCGwRaar5zw+AO1x8rPTuBwtwqRk lvlvLpiHEZ5DXmxNlFMgSQdOv2uhkiUx+YTak= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.11.19 with SMTP id r19mr1238181qar.380.1290798596237; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:09:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.85.7 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:09:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:09:56 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Capacity problem with a lot of writes? From: Carlos Alvarez To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote: > I believe there is room for other compaction models. I am interested > in systems that can optimize the case with multiple data directories > for example. It seems like from my experiment a major compaction can > not fully utilize hardware is specific conditions. Although knowing > which ones to use where and how to automatically select the optimal > strategy are interesting concerns. Thank you for sharing your technique. I also think that a diferent model of compaction could be useful, esp in situations when the normal and nice compaction (the one which gives place to read/write to ocurr) is not enough to recover or when you have small windows of low activity with a lot of unused resources in the cluster. Carlos.