I know, but that's not a big enough difference to warrant the huge amount of difference in load.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Jordan Pittier - Rezel <jor...@rezel.net>wrote: > Node 1 should have token 42535295865117307932921825928971026432 and node > 3 127605887595351923798765477786913079296 according to the formula i * > (2**127 / 4) for i=1..4 > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM, James Golick <jamesgol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I ran cleanup on all of them and the distribution looked roughly even >> after that, but a couple of days later, it's looking pretty uneven. >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Jordan Pittier - Rezel < >> jor...@rezel.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Have you tried nodetool repair (or cleanup) on your nodes ? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM, James Golick <jamesgol...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I just increased my cluster from 2 to 4 nodes, and RF=2 to RF=3, using >>>> RP. >>>> >>>> The tokens seem pretty even on the ring, but two of the nodes are far >>>> more heavily loaded than the others. I understand that there are a variety >>>> of possible reasons for this, but I'm wondering whether anybody has >>>> suggestions for now to tweak the tokens such that this problem is >>>> alleviated. Would it be better to just add 2 more nodes? >>>> >>>> Address Status Load Range >>>> Ring >>>> >>>> 170141183460469231731687303715884105728 >>>> 10.36.99.140 Up 61.73 GB >>>> 43733172796241720623128947447312912170 |<--| >>>> 10.36.99.134 Up 69.7 GB >>>> 85070591730234615865843651857942052864 | | >>>> 10.36.99.138 Up 54.08 GB >>>> 128813844387867495544257452469445200073 | | >>>> 10.36.99.136 Up 54.75 GB >>>> 170141183460469231731687303715884105728 |-->| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
