> > What I normally do is install plain CentOS (Not any AMI build for > Cassandra) and I don't use them for production! I run them for testing, > fire drills and some cassandra-stress benchmarks. I will look if I had more > than 5h Cassandra uptime. I can even put one up now and do the test and get > the results back to you.
Hey thanks for letting me know that. And yep! Same here. It's just a plain CentOS 7 VM I've been using. None of this is for production. I also have an AWS account that I use only for testing. I can try setting it up there to and get back to you with my results. Thank you! Tim On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Carlos Rolo <r...@pythian.com> wrote: > What I normally do is install plain CentOS (Not any AMI build for > Cassandra) and I don't use them for production! I run them for testing, > fire drills and some cassandra-stress benchmarks. I will look if I had more > than 5h Cassandra uptime. I can even put one up now and do the test and get > the results back to you. > > Regards, > > Carlos Juzarte Rolo > Cassandra Consultant > > Pythian - Love your data > > rolo@pythian | Twitter: cjrolo | Linkedin: *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo > <http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>* > Tel: 1649 > www.pythian.com > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Tim Dunphy <bluethu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have Cassandra instances running on VMs with smaller RAM (1GB even) and >>> I don't go OOM when testing them. Although I use them in AWS and other >>> providers, never tried Digital Ocean. >>> Does Cassandra just fails after some time running or it is failing on >>> some specific read/write? >> >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Ok, that's really interesting. So I have to ask, did you have to do >> anything special to get Cassandra to run on those 1GB AWS instances? I'd >> love to do the same. I even tried there as well and failed due to lack of >> memory to run it. >> >> And there is no specific reason other than lack of memory that I can tell >> for it to fail. And it doesn's seem to matter what data I use either. >> Because even if I remove the data directory with rm -rf, the phenomenon is >> the same. It'll run for a while, usually about 5 hours and then just crash >> with the word 'killed' as the last line of output. >> >> Thanks >> Tim >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Carlos Rolo <r...@pythian.com> wrote: >> >>> I have Cassandra instances running on VMs with smaller RAM (1GB even) >>> and I don't go OOM when testing them. Although I use them in AWS and other >>> providers, never tried Digital Ocean. >>> >>> Does Cassandra just fails after some time running or it is failing on >>> some specific read/write? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Carlos Juzarte Rolo >>> Cassandra Consultant >>> >>> Pythian - Love your data >>> >>> rolo@pythian | Twitter: cjrolo | Linkedin: >>> *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>* >>> Tel: 1649 >>> www.pythian.com >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Tim Dunphy <bluethu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey guys, >>>> >>>> After the upgrade to 2.1.3, and after almost exactly 5 hours running >>>> cassandra did indeed crash again on the 2GB ram VM. >>>> >>>> This is how the memory on the VM looked after the crash: >>>> >>>> [root@web2:~] #free -m >>>> total used free shared buffers >>>> cached >>>> Mem: 2002 1227 774 8 45 >>>> 386 >>>> -/+ buffers/cache: 794 1207 >>>> Swap: 0 0 0 >>>> >>>> >>>> And that's with this set in the cassandra-env.sh file: >>>> >>>> MAX_HEAP_SIZE="800M" >>>> HEAP_NEWSIZE="200M" >>>> >>>> So I'm thinking now, do I just have to abandon this idea I have of >>>> running Cassandra on a 2GB instance? Or is this something we can all agree >>>> can be done? And if so, how can we do that? :) >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Jason Kushmaul | WDA < >>>> jason.kushm...@wda.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I asked this previously when a similar message came through, with a >>>>> similar response. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> planetcassandra seems to have it “right”, in that stable=2.0, >>>>> development=2.1, whereas the apache site says stable is 2.1. >>>>> >>>>> “Right” in they assume latest minor version is development. Why not >>>>> have the apache site do the same? That’s just my lowly non-contributing >>>>> opinion though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Jason * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Andrew [mailto:redmu...@gmail.com] >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:26 PM >>>>> *To:* Robert Coli; user@cassandra.apache.org >>>>> *Subject:* Re: run cassandra on a small instance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if I’m off base about this—but I feel like I see a lot of >>>>> posts that are like this (i.e., use this arbitrary version, not this other >>>>> arbitrary version). Why are releases going out if they’re “broken”? This >>>>> seems like a very confusing way for new (and existing) users to approach >>>>> versions... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On February 18, 2015 at 5:16:27 PM, Robert Coli (rc...@eventbrite.com) >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Tim Dunphy <bluethu...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm attempting to run Cassandra 2.1.2 on a smallish 2.GB ram instance >>>>> over at Digital Ocean. It's a CentOS 7 host. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.1.2 is IMO broken and should not be used for any purpose. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Use 2.1.1 or 2.1.3. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://engineering.eventbrite.com/what-version-of-cassandra-should-i-run/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =Rob >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> GPG me!! >>>> >>>> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> GPG me!! >> >> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B >> >> > > -- > > > > -- GPG me!! gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B
