Kathleen, This is a tricky question. On a new database, the cache_size will help performance. As your database grows, the file cache (max_open_files) becomes more important than the cache_size because a miss in the file cache is much more expensive (disk activity) than a miss in the block cache (cache_size).
My thought at this time is to leave you cache_size as is (50Mbytes), and reduce your max_open_files from 150 to 138. Once your database is in production, go find a LOG file in the leveldb data directory every two weeks or so. Look for a line like this: 2013/11/06-16:32:06.853818 7f972437a700 compacted to: files[ 0 0 29 51 50 0 0 ] Add the seven numbers between the '[' and ']'. When those total larger than 138, it will be time to start rethinking the setting. Matthew On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:05 PM, kzhang <kzh...@wayfair.com> wrote: > I am attaching my calculation based on our environment. Since I am getting > negative remainders, so my best bet is to change the number of > max_open_file? should I tweak cache_size at all? > > > Copy_of_leveldb_sizing_1_4_(2).xls > <http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/file/n4029721/Copy_of_leveldb_sizing_1_4_%282%29.xls> > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/LevelDB-tuning-questions-tp4029246p4029721.html > Sent from the Riak Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
