incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra vs Couchbase benchmarks
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:53:47 GMT
A few notes:

* +1 for missing RF and CL cassandra stats.
* Using stripped EBS for m1.xlarge is a bad choice, unless they are using provisioned IOPS.
Which they do not say. 
* Cassandra JVM settings are *not* standard. It's a low new heap size and a larger than default
heap size. 
* "memtable size" which I assume they mean memtable_total_space_in_mb should default to 1/3
the heap. They have doubled it. 
* I would expect the above non standard memory settings to result in increased GC activity
and increased latency / reduced throughput

* They presented the facts and said "you decide who is a winner" LOLS

Cheers

-----------------
Aaron Morton
Freelance Developer
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com

On 2/10/2012, at 4:48 AM, horschi <horschi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> 
> things I find odd:
> 
> - Replicacount=1 for mongo and couchdb. How is that a realistic benchmark? I always want
at least 2 replicas for my data. Maybe thats just me.
> - On the Mongo Config slide they said they disabled journaling. Why do you disable all
safety mechanisms that you would want in a production environment? Maybe they should have
added /dev/null to their benchmark ;-)
> - I dont see the replicacount for Cassandra in the slides. Also CL is not specified.
Imho the important stuff is missing in the cassandra configuration.
> - In the goals section it said "more data than RAM". But they only have 12GB data per
node, with 15GB of RAM per node!
> 
> I am very interested in a recent cassandra-benchmark, but I find this benchmark very
disappointing.
> 
> cheers,
> Christian
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Andy Cobley <acobley@computing.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> There are some interesting results in the benchmarks below:
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/renatko/couchbase-performance-benchmarking
> 
> Without starting a flame war etc, I'm interested if these results should
> be considered "Fair and Balanced" or if the methodology is flawed in some
> way ? (for instance is the use of Amazon EC2 sensible for Cassandra
> deployment) ?
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096.
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message