On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Sean Bridges wrote:
> But doesn't having multiple similarly sized column families mean in-node
> compaction does not require 50% of disk? Looking at compaction manager,
> only 1 thread is doing a compaction, so we only need enough free disk space
> to compact the
But doesn't having multiple similarly sized column families mean in-node
compaction does not require 50% of disk? Looking at compaction manager,
only 1 thread is doing a compaction, so we only need enough free disk space
to compact the largest column family.
Sean
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00 AM
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sean Bridges wrote:
> So after CASSANDRA-579, anti compaction won't be done on the source node,
> and we can use more than 50% of the disk space if we use multiple column
> families?
Sorry if I misunderstand, but #579 seems to only solve half of your question,
I b
So after CASSANDRA-579, anti compaction won't be done on the source node,
and we can use more than 50% of the disk space if we use multiple column
families?
Thanks,
Sean
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Stu Hood wrote:
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-579 for some
> backg
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-579 for some background
here: I was just about to start working on this one, but it won't make it in
until 0.7.
-Original Message-
From: "Sean Bridges"
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:50am
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: using
