Sure, other things being equal.
Of course, other things are not truly equal and in practice I think
dual-quad-core, 32GB servers are at a good sweet spot for a lot of
applications.
As a rule of thumb, inserts will be cpu-bound and reads will be ram/io bound.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Rame
Thanks. We are not planning to use row cache because we don't anticipate
requests for the same row coming in often and we would better let the OS do
the caching.. So does this mean in my case instead of running 6 servers
with 100 GB each, I can run 75 servers with 8 GB RAM and set the Xms/Xmx to
4
That's misleading, because you don't necessarily need to give the
memory to the JVM for Cassandra to make use of it. (See, for example,
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-1-0-improved-memory-and-disk-space-management.)
In fact it's counterproductive to increase heap size past
Someone has just talked about the heap size in this mail list, says that bigger
heap size will result into a longer GC phase, that could probably be one of the
reason not using larger heap size.
But I have really heard of some others using Cassandra with some 60 gigabytes
of heap size.
εΎζη Bla
