incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sridhar basam <...@basam.org>
Subject Re: split large sstable
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:26:08 GMT
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dan Hendry <dan.hendry.junk@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Pretty sure your argument about indirect blocks making large files
>> inefficient only pertains to ext2/3 and not ext4. It seems ext4 replaces
>> the
>> 'indirect block' approach with extents
>> (
>> http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4#head-7c5fd53118e8b888345b95cc11756346be4268f4
>> , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#Features).
>>
>> I was not aware of this difference in the file systems and it seems to be
>> a
>> compelling reason ext4 should be chosen (over ext3) for Cassandra - at
>> least
>> when using size tiered compaction.
>>
>>
If you are using a Redhat distribution, at least in the 5.x series, make
sure that you pass in a '-O extent' option when you create the filesystem.
Otherwise extents are not enabled by default.


> IMHO there is only one good reason left to use ext3. For a 100MB /boot
> partition since the boot loaders have an easier time with it.
>
> EXT4 is better then EXT3 in every way. It is the default formatting for
> RHEL. Do not fight the future.
>
>
> http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/a_great_reason_to_use
>
>
I agree with ext4 being superior to ext3 but some constructive feedback
about your graphs.

You might want to add a legend or point out the before and after if you
want to show difference between ext3 and ext4. I can kind of see that
something might have changed on the Friday but without a legend it makes it
hard to see the point you are trying to make.

 Sridhar

Mime
View raw message