Sure, that should be fine. On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Daniel Doubleday <daniel.double...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > on 0.6: > > we are facing increased write latencies every now and then when an > unfortunate write command thread becomes the flush writer for a mem table > because of an already running mem table flush. > > I was thinking of setting the work queue in CFS.flushWriterPool to > > new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>(3) // because 3 is my favorite number > > instead of > > new > LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>(DatabaseDescriptor.getAllDataFileLocations().length) > > while leaving the max threads at 1 (we have only one date dir) > > I'm not afraid to OOM. We have enough heap to hold the extra 2 mem tables. > > Anybody did this and got in trouble? > > PS: I know that 0.7 makes this configurable (but also increases writer > concurrency while I would rather only queue). > > Thanks, > Daniel
-- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support http://www.datastax.com
