Return-Path: 
 <user-return-30090-apmail-cassandra-user-archive=cassandra.apache.org@cassandra.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6FBEDD64
	for <apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 93572 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2012 00:24:33 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93549 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2012 00:24:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.cassandra.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93541 invoked by uid 99); 13 Nov 2012 00:24:33 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:24:33 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [66.111.4.29] (HELO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com)
 (66.111.4.29)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:24:28 +0000
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46])
	by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id E654820A34
	for <user@cassandra.apache.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.213])
  by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:24:02 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version
	:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to
	:references; s=smtpout; bh=tE08OrKLc4Q4C2Phx7t3LIu2Cx8=; b=WWBQo
	tUaBl7L6JMrqjlJDE86ddx6JWSDZ80juznLeV0WoQpvWhsnVtwBTMIkkVAzUQb3L
	AL9OmNnff5NtAeYQ57YmWaig2brMYke9hx8p3guL+7g1dVg4PSlCJ8OSYxFpqafr
	7PmJqSktyvo/81CSMVBb935OHUs3d+p1trQeAo=
Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
	id B00B83A0E8A; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: 
 <1352766242.1659.140661152841949.3A3327EB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: QXEcgijR92qaA54F8iRh1XaZELGnrNq5vQ/FL/iuhoPM 1352766242
From: Kirk True <kirk@mustardgrain.com>
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_135276624216590";
 charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Subject: Re: read request distribution
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:24:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJBMQQjVxuWyXO3BHX9D8CMx6ez5+NHe-SQB8tDgr0cDgTkSPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1352439442.7645.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAJBMQQjVxuWyXO3BHX9D8CMx6ez5+NHe-SQB8tDgr0cDgTkSPg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--_----------=_135276624216590
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain

Somewhat recently the Ownership column was changed to Effective
Ownership.



Previously the formula was essentially 100/<nodes>. Now it's
100*<replication factor>/<nodes>. So in previous releases of Cassandra
it would be 100/12 = 8.33, now it would be closer to 25% (8.33*3
(assuming a replication factor of three)).



Kirk



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 03:52 PM, Ananth Gundabattula wrote:

Hi all,

On an unrelated observation of the below readings, it looks like all
the 3 nodes own 100% of the data. This confuses me a bit. We have a 12
node cluster with RF=3 but the effective ownership is shown as 8.33 %
.

So here is my question. How is the ownership calculated : Is Replica
factor considered in the ownership calculation ? ( If yes , then 8.33 %
ownership of a cluster seems wrong to me . If not 100% ownership for a
node cluster seems wrong to me. Am I missing something in the
calculation?

Regards,
Ananth

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wei Zhu <[1]wz1975@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi All,
I am doing a benchmark on a Cassandra. I have a three node cluster with
RF=3. I generated 6M rows with sequence  number from 1 to 6m, so the
rows should be evenly distributed among the three nodes disregarding
the replicates.
I am doing a benchmark with read only requests, I generate read request
for randomly generated keys from 1 to 6M. Oddly, nodetool cfstats,
reports that one node has only half the requests as the other one and
the third node sits in the middle. So the ratio is like 2:3:4. The node
with the most read requests actually has the smallest latency and the
one with the least read requests reports the largest latency. The
difference is pretty big, the fastest is almost double the slowest.
All three nodes have the exactly the same hardware and the data size on
each node are the same since the RF is three and all of them have the
complete data. I am using Hector as client and the random read request
are in millions. I can't think of a reasonable explanation.  Can
someone please shed some lights?

Thanks.
-Wei

References

1. mailto:wz1975@yahoo.com

--_----------=_135276624216590
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div>Somewhat recently the Ownership column was changed to Effective Ownership.&nbsp;<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Previously the formula was essentially 100/&lt;nodes&gt;. Now it's 100*&lt;replication factor&gt;/&lt;nodes&gt;. So in previous releases of Cassandra it would be 100/12 = 8.33, now it would be closer to 25% (8.33*3 (assuming a replication factor of three)).<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Kirk<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>On Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 03:52 PM, Ananth Gundabattula wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="QuoteMessage" type="cite"><div><div>Hi all,<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>On an unrelated observation of the below readings, it looks like all the 3 nodes own 100% of the data. This confuses me a bit. We have a 12 node cluster with RF=3 but the effective ownership is shown as 8.33 % .&nbsp;<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>So here is my question. How is the ownership calculated : Is Replica factor considered in the ownership calculation ? ( If yes , then 8.33 % ownership of a cluster seems wrong to me . If not 100% ownership for a node cluster seems wrong to me. Am I missing something in the calculation?&nbsp;<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Regards,<br></div>
<div>Ananth<br></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wei Zhu <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:wz1975@yahoo.com" target="_blank">wz1975@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div>Hi All,<br></div>
<div>I am doing a benchmark on a Cassandra. I have a three node cluster with RF=3. I generated 6M rows with sequence&nbsp; number from 1 to 6m, so the rows should be evenly distributed among the three nodes disregarding the replicates. <br></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I am doing a benchmark with read only requests, I generate read request for randomly generated keys from 1 to 6M. Oddly, nodetool cfstats, reports that one node has only half the requests as the other one and the third node sits in the middle. So the ratio is like 2:3:4. The node with the most read requests actually has the smallest latency and the one with the least read requests reports the largest latency. The difference is pretty big,
 the fastest is almost double the slowest.<br></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">All three nodes have the exactly the same hardware and the data size on each node are the same since the RF is three and all of them have the complete data. I am using Hector as client and the random read request are in millions. I can't think of a reasonable explanation.&nbsp; Can someone please shed some lights?<br></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
Thanks.<br></div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(136, 136, 136)"><div style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">-Wei<br></div>
</span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote></body>
</html>

--_----------=_135276624216590--