incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Coli <rc...@palominodb.com>
Subject Re: counters + replication = awful performance?
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:21:19 GMT
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mispoke really. It is not dangerous you just have to understand what it
> means. this jira discusses it.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3868

Per Sylvain on the referenced ticket :

"
I don't disagree about the efficiency of the valve, but at what price?
'Bootstrapping a node will make you lose increments (you don't know
which ones, you don't know how many and this even if nothing goes
wrong)' is a pretty bad drawback. That is pretty much why that option
makes me uncomfortable: it does give you better performance, so people
may be tempted to use it. Now if it was only a matter of replicating
writes only through read-repair/repair, then ok, it's pretty dangerous
but it's rather easy to explain/understand the drawback (if you don't
lose a disk, you don't lose increments, and you'd better use CL.ALL or
have read_repair_chance to 1). But the fact that it doesn't work with
bootstrap/move makes me wonder if having the option at all is not
making a disservice to users.
"

To me anything that can be described as "will make you lose increments
(you don't know which ones, you don't know how many and this even if
nothing goes wrong)" and which therefore "doesn't work with
bootstrap/move" is correctly described as "dangerous." :D

=Rob

-- 
=Robert Coli
AIM&GTALK - rcoli@palominodb.com
YAHOO - rcoli.palominob
SKYPE - rcoli_palominodb

Mime
View raw message