You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Lahiru Gamathige <la...@highfive.com> on 2016/11/01 18:47:43 UTC

native_transport_max_frame_size_in_mb vs max_value_size_in_mb

Hi Users,

I see that C* introduced max_value_size_in_mb and if a SSTable is larger
than this it will be a currupted SSTable. In our current cluster I see
tables with very large SSTables, and if we are migrating to new version
should I increase this number ?

But increasing max_value_size_in_mb to a higher value looks risky but the
documentation says these should match.

Any thoughts ?

Re: native_transport_max_frame_size_in_mb vs max_value_size_in_mb

Posted by Lahiru Gamathige <la...@highfive.com>.

Since this is already commented this size check is disabled or its default
set to 256MB and if we have higher sized SSTables those are going to mark
currupted ?

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Lahiru Gamathige <la...@highfive.com>
wrote:

> Hi Users,
>
> I see that C* introduced max_value_size_in_mb and if a SSTable is larger
> than this it will be a currupted SSTable. In our current cluster I see
> tables with very large SSTables, and if we are migrating to new version
> should I increase this number ?
>
> But increasing max_value_size_in_mb to a higher value looks risky but the
> documentation says these should match.
>
> Any thoughts ?
>