Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jbellis@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=vhzZ/jQMPzBJX5hiK1T5Xr2iQeI7RAF6QpSdqgiRSAq4R+RgbNoAL+gyhJLW747rcB
         e22Vkb0aaRw24k9xmWfsq+Tovddwx5sHjqOYYM77G5TGhFZqq57yn9z+PUFnkA4Kaqem
         ANY05+LeulJCMszZbzjt62e8P7a3rOGelALeo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=KQVPCC1AH83Vw0cjUuqu_Y1_omw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=KQVPCC1AH83Vw0cjUuqu_Y1_omw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 05:54:09 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinko=UYze_CBbL99vqszd17+fk7uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: compaction strategy
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Terje Marthinussen
<tmarthinussen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Would it make sense to make full compactions occur a bit more aggressive.

I'd rather reduce the performance impact of being behind, than do more
full compactions: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2498

> 2. I
> would think the code should be smart enough to either trigger a full
> compaction and scrap the current queue, or at least merge some of those
> pending tasks into larger ones

Not crazy but a queue-rewriter would be nontrivial. For now I'm okay
with saying "add capacity until compaction can mostly keep up." (Most
people's problem is making compaction LESS aggressive, hence
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2156.)

-- 
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support
http://www.datastax.com