Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chris.wirt@struq.com designates
 209.85.215.181 as permitted sender)
From: "Christopher Wirt" <chris.wirt@struq.com>
To: <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: listen_address and rpc_address address on different interface
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:53:17 +0100
Message-ID: <009d01ce7e1c$7909ea00$6b1dbe00$@struq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CE7E24.DACFFFB0"
Thread-Index: Ac5+FzdS3RCXcZ/3Qk2Vis/JaWcOgg==
Content-Language: en-gb

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CE7E24.DACFFFB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

 
I was wondering if anyone has measured the performance improvements to
having the listen address and client address bound to different interface?

 
We a have 2gbit connection serving both at the moment and this doesn't come
close to being saturated. But being very keen on fast reads at the 99th
percentile we're interested in even the smallest improvements.

 
Next question - Has anyone ever moved an existing node to have the listen
address and client access address bound to different addresses?

 
Our Problem  

Currently our only address is a DNS entry which we would like to keep bound
to the client access.

If we were to take down a node and change the listen address then re-join
the ring, the other nodes will mark the node as dead when we take it down
and assume we have a new node when we bring it back on a different address. 

Lots of wasted rebalancing and compaction will start.

We use Cassandra 1.2.4 w/vnodes.

Not sure there will be anyway around this.

So back to question one, am I wasting my time?

 
Thanks,

Chris

 
------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CE7E24.DACFFFB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 =
(filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>I was =
wondering if anyone has measured the performance improvements to having =
the listen address and client address bound to different =
interface?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>We a have 2gbit connection serving both at the moment =
and this doesn&#8217;t come close to being saturated. But being very =
keen on fast reads at the 99<sup>th</sup> percentile we&#8217;re =
interested in even the smallest improvements.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Next =
question - Has anyone ever moved an existing node to have the listen =
address and client access address bound to different =
addresses?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Our Problem&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Currently our only address is a DNS entry which we =
would like to keep bound to the client access.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>If we were to take down a node and change the listen =
address then re-join the ring, the other nodes will mark the node as =
dead when we take it down and assume we have a new node when we bring it =
back on a different address. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Lots of =
wasted rebalancing and compaction will start.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>We use Cassandra 1.2.4 w/vnodes.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Not sure there will be anyway around =
this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>So back to question one, am I =
wasting my time?<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal> =
<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Chris<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CE7E24.DACFFFB0--