That version of Cassandra had a bug where it was using the wrong size especially if someone is using compressed tables.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:54 AM, blafrisch <michael.fri...@swype.com> wrote: > My understanding was that total is sum of all SSTables on disc even those > not > being used currently and live is the sum of the SSTables on disc that are > being used currently. > > Well I have a Cassandra 1.0.2 cluster in which all of the column families > are reporting live being greater than total. I have a 5 node cluster with > a > replication factor of 3. > > And example column family's data: > SSTable count: 7 > Space used (live): 360190517439 > Space used (total): 114886096957 > > As you can see, live is a little over 3x that of the total. How is that > possible? The actual disk space consumed reflects that of the of the > total, > not "live". > > -- > View this message in context: > http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/Question-about-storage-live-vs-total-for-column-families-tp7078451p7078451.html > Sent from the cassandra-u...@incubator.apache.org mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. >
