Hey Aaron,
I went ahead and changed the model around to reduce the number of CF's from
around 60 or so to 7, but I'm still running into OOM messages and eventual node
crashes after I've pushed in about 30GB of data per node. And it seems that,
under load, once one node goes down, the other see
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
> Also, if you are using leveled compaction, remember that each SSTable will
> take a couple of MB of heap space. You can tune this by choosing a good
> sstable_size_in_mb value for those CFs which are on LCS and contain lots of
> data. De
Also, if you are using leveled compaction, remember that each SSTable will take
a couple of MB of heap space. You can tune this by choosing a good
sstable_size_in_mb value for those CFs which are on LCS and contain lots of
data. Default is 5 MB, which is for many cases inadequate, so most peo
> "Does the number of column families still significantly impact the memory
> footprint? If so, what is the incremental cost of a column family/table?"
IMHO there would be little difference in memory use for a node with zero data
that had 10 CF's and one that had 100 CF's. When you start putting
if using 1.2.*, Bloom filters are in native memory so not pressuring your
heap, how many data do you have per node ? If this value is big, you have
samples index in the heap consuming a lot of memory, for sure, and growing
as your data per node grow.
Solutions : increase the heap if < 8GB and / or
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Paul Ingalls wrote:
> I don't really need exact numbers, just a rough cost would be sufficient.
> I'm running into memory problems on my cluster, and I'm trying to decide
> if reducing the number of column families would be worth the effort.
> Looking at the rul
I don't really need exact numbers, just a rough cost would be sufficient. I'm
running into memory problems on my cluster, and I'm trying to decide if
reducing the number of column families would be worth the effort. Looking at
the rule of thumb from the wiki entry made it seem like reducing th
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Ingalls wrote:
> At the core, my question really is:
>
> "Does the number of column families still significantly impact the memory
> footprint? If so, what is the incremental cost of a column family/table?"
>
This question has been asked about a kabillion ti
I'm trying to get a handle on how newer cassandra handles memory. Most of what
I am seeing via google, on the wiki etc. appears old. For example, this wiki
article appears out of date relative to post 1.0:
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/MemtableThresholds
specifically this is the section I'
