Dor and Reid: thanks, that was very helpful. Is the large amount of compression an artifact of pre-cass3.11 where the column names were per-cell (combined with the cluster key for extreme verbosity, I think), so compression would at least be effective against those portions of the sstable data? IIRC the cass commiters figured as long as you can shrink the data, the reduced size drops the time to read off of the disk, maybe even the time to get into CPU cache from memory and the CPU to decompress is somewhat "free" at that point since everything else is stalled for I/O or memory reads?
But I don't know how the 3.11.x format works to avoid spamming of those column names, I haven't torn into that part of the code. On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:15 AM Reid Pinchback <rpinchb...@tripadvisor.com> wrote: > Note that DynamoDB I/O throughput scaling doesn’t work well with brief > spikes. Unless you write your own machinery to manage the provisioning, by > the time AWS scales the I/O bandwidth your incident has long since passed. > It’s not a thing to rely on if you have a latency SLA. It really only > works for situations like a sustained alteration in load, e.g. if you have > a sinusoidal daily traffic pattern, or periodic large batch operations that > run for an hour or two, and you need the I/O adjustment while that takes > place. > > > > Also note that DynamoDB routinely chokes on write contention, which C* > would rarely do. About the only benefit DynamoDB has over C* is that more > of its operations function as atomic mutations of an existing row. > > > > One thing to also factor into the comparison is developer effort. The > DynamoDB API isn’t exactly tuned to making developers productive. Most of > the AWS APIs aren’t, really, once you use them for non-toy projects. AWS > scales in many dimensions, but total developer effort is not one of them > when you are talking about high-volume tier one production systems. > > > > To respond to one of the other original points/questions, yes key and row > caches don’t seem to be a win, but that would vary with your specific usage > pattern. Caches need a good enough hit rate to offset the GC impact. Even > when C* lets you move things off heap, you’ll see a fair number of GC-able > artifacts associated with data in caches. Chunk cache somewhat wins with > being off-heap, because it isn’t just I/O avoidance with that cache, you’re > also benefitting from the decompression. However I’ve started to wonder > how often sstable compression is worth the performance drag and internal C* > complexity. If you compare to where a more traditional RDBMS would use > compression, e.g. Postgres, use of compression is more selective; you only > bear the cost in the places already determined to win from the tradeoff. > > > > *From: *Dor Laor <d...@scylladb.com> > *Reply-To: *"user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> > *Date: *Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:58 PM > *To: *"user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> > *Subject: *Re: Dynamo autoscaling: does it beat cassandra? > > > > *Message from External Sender* > > The DynamoDB model has several key benefits over Cassandra's. > > The most notable one is the tablet concept - data is partitioned into 10GB > > chunks. So scaling happens where such a tablet reaches maximum capacity > > and it is automatically divided to two. It can happen in parallel across > the entire > > data set, thus there is no concept of growing the amount of nodes or > vnodes. > > As the actual hardware is multi-tenant, the average server should have > plenty > > of capacity to receive these streams. > > > > That said, when we benchmarked DynamoDB and just hit it with ingest > workload, > > even when it was reserved, we had to slow down the pace since we received > many > > 'error 500' which means internal server errors. Their hot partitions do > not behave great > > as well. > > > > So I believe a growth of 10% the capacity with good key distribution can > be handled well > > but a growth of 2x in a short time will fail. It's something you're expect > from any database > > but Dynamo has an advantage with tablets and multitenancy and issues with > hot partitions > > and accounting of hot keys which will get cached in Cassandra better. > > > > Dynamo allows you to detach compute from the storage which is a key > benefit in a serverless, spiky deployment. > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:02 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Expansion probably much faster in 4.0 with complete sstable streaming > (skips ser/deser), though that may have diminishing returns with vnodes > unless you're using LCS. > > Dynamo on demand / autoscaling isn't magic - they're overprovisioning to > give you the burst, then expanding on demand. That overprovisioning comes > with a cost. Unless you're actively and regularly scaling, you're probably > going to pay more for it. > > > It'd be cool if someone focused on this - I think the faster streaming > goes a long way. The way vnodes work today make it difficult to add more > than one at a time without violating consistency, and thats unlikely to > change, but if each individual node is much faster, that may mask it a bit. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:35 PM Carl Mueller > <carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> wrote: > > Dynamo salespeople have been pushing autoscaling abilities that have been > one of the key temptations to our management to switch off of cassandra. > > Has anyone done any numbers on how well dynamo will autoscale demand > spikes, and how we could architect cassandra to compete with such abilities? > > We probably could overprovision and with the presumably higher cost of > dynamo beat it, although the sales engineers claim they are closing the > cost factor too. We could vertically scale to some degree, but node > expansion seems close. > > VNode expansion is still limited to one at a time? > > We use VNodes so we can't do netflix's cluster doubling, correct? With > cass 4.0's alleged segregation of the data by token we could though and > possibly also "prep" the node by having the necessary sstables already > present ahead of time? > > > There's always "caching" too, but there isn't a lot of data on general > fronting of cassandra with caches, and the row cache continues to be mostly > useless? > >
