You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@cassandra.apache.org by "Ariel Weisberg (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2016/07/05 16:45:11 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-12104) Handle coalesce efforts for
inter-dc traffic discretely from intra-dc traffic
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12104?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15362749#comment-15362749 ]
Ariel Weisberg commented on CASSANDRA-12104:
--------------------------------------------
How were you able to tell they had a positive on inter-dc traffic if you were experiencing a negative impact to intra-dc traffic? What is the metric you are using?
> Handle coalesce efforts for inter-dc traffic discretely from intra-dc traffic
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-12104
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12104
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Thom Valley
> Priority: Minor
>
> In relationship to CASSANDRA-8692, we have discovered that pushing coalescing windows to the point where they have a positive impact on inter-dc traffic overhead appears to have causes delays in intra-dc traffic (namely, quorum requests between nodes). Having the same coalescing strategy apply to all messages (especially intra-dc request/response messages) seems like a bad idea.
> This was in a 5 DC environment with from 30 to 130 ms of latency between the DCs. Local network was entirely unrestricted 10G ethernet.
> Being able to apply different coalescing rules to those two classifications of traffic would allow much more effective tuning of the coalescing strategies, save inter-dc bandwidth while not having any impact on intra-dc message handling.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)