incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ParNew and caching
Date Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:20:19 GMT
I am not sure if there is a ticket on this but I have always thought the
row cache should not bother caching an entry bigger then n columns.

Murmurs of a slice cache might help as well.

On Saturday, December 10, 2011, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
wrote:
>> After re-reading my post, what I meant to say is that I switched from
>> Serializing cache provider to ConcurrentLinkedHash cache provider and
then
>> saw better performance, but still far worse than no caching at all:
>>
>> - no caching at all : 25-30ms
>> - with Serializing provider : 1300+ms
>> - with Concurrent provider : 500ms
>>
>> 100% cache hit rate.  ParNew is the only stat that I see out of line, so
>> seems like still a lot of copying
>
> In general, if you want to get to the bottom of this stuff and you
> think GC is involved, always run with -XX:+PrintGC -XX:+PrintGCDetails
> -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps so that the GC activity
> can be observed.
>
> 1300+ should not be GC unless you are having fallbacks to full GC:s
> (would be possible to see with gc logging) and it should definitely be
> possible to avoid full gc:s being extremely common (but eliminating
> them entirely may not be possible).
>
> --
> / Peter Schuller (@scode, http://worldmodscode.wordpress.com)
>

Mime
View raw message