For writes it's negligible. For reads it makes a significant difference for high tps and low latency workload. You would see up to 3x higher cpu with LZ4 vs no compression. It would be different for different h/w configurations.
Thanks, Tushar (Sent from iPhone) > On Nov 3, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Dan Kinder <dkin...@turnitin.com> wrote: > > Most concerned about write since that's where most of the cost is, but perf > numbers for a any workload mix would be helpful. > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Graham Sanderson <gra...@vast.com> wrote: >> On read or write? >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7039 and friends in 2.2 >> should make some difference, I didn’t immediately find perf numbers though. >> >>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Dan Kinder <dkin...@turnitin.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone has done seen or done any benchmarking for the >>> actual CPU overhead added by various compression algorithms in Cassandra >>> (at least LZ4) vs no compression. Clearly this is going to be workload >>> dependent but even a rough gauge would be helpful (ex. "Turning on LZ4 >>> compression increases my CPU load by ~2x") >>> >>> -dan > > > > -- > Dan Kinder > Senior Software Engineer > Turnitin – www.turnitin.com > dkin...@turnitin.com
