Sounds interesting. Could 80% of what we gain with a “shard” approach be
achieved via Mesos to wrap a stateful service? Technically it’s “Sharding” the
whole machine and better utilizing resources.
--
Rahul Singh
rahul.si...@anant.us
Anant Corporation
On Apr 19, 2018, 1:23 PM -0500, sankalp ko
If you donate Thread per core to C*, I am sure someone can help you review
it and get it committed.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Ben Bromhead wrote:
> Re #3:
>
> Yup I was thinking each shard/port would appear as a discrete server to the
> client.
>
> If the per port suggestion is unaccepta
Re #3:
Yup I was thinking each shard/port would appear as a discrete server to the
client.
If the per port suggestion is unacceptable due to hardware requirements,
remembering that Cassandra is built with the concept scaling *commodity*
hardware horizontally, you'll have to spend your time and en
Hi,
So at technical level I don't understand this yet.
So you have a database consisting of single threaded shards and a socket for
accept that is generating TCP connections and in advance you don't know which
connection is going to send messages to which shard.
What is the mechanism by which
Hi,
>That basically means a fork in the protocol (perhaps a temporary fork if
>we go for mode 2 where Cassandra retroactively adopts our protocol
>changes, if they fit will).
>
>Implementing a protocol change may be easy for some simple changes, but
>in the general case, it is not realistic to
This is purely my own opinion, but I find the use of the term 'shard'
quite unfortunate in the context of a distributed database. The
historical usage of the term has been the notion of data partitions that
reside on separate database servers. There is a learning curve with
distributed databases, a
On 2018-04-19 10:19, kurt greaves wrote:
1. The protocol change is developed using the Cassandra process in a JIRA
ticket, culminating in a patch to doc/native_protocol*.spec when consensus
is achieved.
I don't think forking would be desirable (for anyone) so this seems the
most reasonable to
On 2018-04-19 19:10, Ariel Weisberg wrote:
Hi,
I think that updating the protocol spec to Cassandra puts the onus on the party
changing the protocol specification to have an implementation of the spec in
Cassandra as well as the Java and Python driver (those are both used in the
Cassandra r
Port-per-shard is likely the easiest option but it's too ugly to
contemplate. We run on machines with 160 shards (IBM POWER 2s20c160t
IIRC), it will be just horrible to have 160 open ports.
It also doesn't fit will with the NICs ability to automatically
distribute packets among cores using mu
WRT to #3
To fit in the existing protocol, could you have each shard listen on a
different port? Drivers are likely going to support this due to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7544 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11596). I'm not super
familiar with the ticket so
Hi,
I think that updating the protocol spec to Cassandra puts the onus on the party
changing the protocol specification to have an implementation of the spec in
Cassandra as well as the Java and Python driver (those are both used in the
Cassandra repo). Until it's implemented in Cassandra we ha
On 2018/04/19 07:19:27, kurt greaves wrote:
> >
> > 1. The protocol change is developed using the Cassandra process in a JIRA
> > ticket, culminating in a patch to doc/native_protocol*.spec when consensus
> > is achieved.
>
> I don't think forking would be desirable (for anyone) so this seems
Hi Sam,
Your finding is interesting. Effectively, if the number of bytes to skip is
larger than the remaining bytes in the buffer + the buffer size it could be
faster to use seek.
Feel free to open a JIRA ticket and attach your patch. It will be great if
you could add to the ticket your table sche
>
> 1. The protocol change is developed using the Cassandra process in a JIRA
> ticket, culminating in a patch to doc/native_protocol*.spec when consensus
> is achieved.
I don't think forking would be desirable (for anyone) so this seems the
most reasonable to me. For 1 and 2 it certainly makes se
14 matches
Mail list logo
