[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

Sorry, to be clear - I'm +1 on changing the configuration default, but I
think changing the compression in memory representations warrants further
discussion and investigation before making a case for or against it yet.
An optimization that reduces in memory cost by over 50% sounds pretty good
and we never were really explicit that those sort of optimizations would be
excluded after our feature freeze.  I don't think they should necessarily
be excluded at this time, but it depends on the size and risk of the patch.

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 8:38 AM Jonathan Haddad <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think we should try to do the right thing for the most people that we
> can.  The number of folks impacted by 64KB is huge.  I've worked on a lot
> of clusters created by a lot of different teams, going from brand new to
> pretty damn knowledgeable.  I can't think of a single time over the last 2
> years that I've seen a cluster use non-default settings for compression.
> With only a handful of exceptions, I've lowered the chunk size considerably
> (usually to 4 or 8K) and the impact has always been very noticeable,
> frequently resulting in hardware reduction and cost savings.  Of all the
> poorly chosen defaults we have, this is one of the biggest offenders that I
> see.  There's a good reason ScyllaDB  claims they're so much faster than
> Cassandra - we ship a DB that performs poorly for 90+% of teams because we
> ship for a specific use case, not a general one (time series on memory
> constrained boxes being the specific use case)
> This doesn't impact existing tables, just new ones.  More and more teams
> are using Cassandra as a general purpose database, we should acknowledge
> that adjusting our defaults accordingly.  Yes, we use a little bit more
> memory on new tables if we just change this setting, and what we get out of
> it is a massive performance win.
> I'm +1 on the change as well.
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:21 AM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> (We should definitely harden the definition for freeze in a separate
>> thread)
>> My thinking is that this is the best time to do this change as we have
>> not even cut alpha or beta. All the people involved in the test will
>> definitely be testing it again when we have these releases.
>> > On Oct 19, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Michael Shuler <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/19/18 9:16 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At the risk of hijacking this thread, when are we going to transition
>> from
>> >> "no new features, change whatever else you want including refactoring
>> and
>> >> changing years-old defaults" to "ok, we think we have something that's
>> >> stable, time to start testing"?
>> >
>> > Creating a cassandra-4.0 branch would allow trunk to, for instance, get
>> > a default config value change commit and get more testing. We might
>> > forget again, from what I understand of Benedict's last comment :)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> Jon Haddad
> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
> twitter: rustyrazorblade

Jon Haddad
twitter: rustyrazorblade