[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14044015#comment-14044015
 ] 

sankalp kohli commented on CASSANDRA-6621:
------------------------------------------

If we are doing it in 2.0, then we need to make a note in NEWS.txt that 
streaming won't be supported during upgrade. 
Also CASSANDRA-7414 will be key to recover from not so full levels. 
Your patch looks good otherwise. 

> STCS fallback is not optimal when bootstrapping
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6621
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6621
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Bartłomiej Romański
>            Assignee: Marcus Eriksson
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: compaction, streaming
>             Fix For: 2.0.9
>
>         Attachments: 0001-wip-keep-sstable-level-when-bootstrapping.patch
>
>
> The initial discussion started in (closed) CASSANDRA-5371. I've rewritten my 
> last comment here...
> After streaming (e.g. during boostrap) Cassandra places all sstables at L0. 
> At the end of the process we end up with huge number of sstables at the 
> lowest level. 
> Currently, Cassandra falls back to STCS until the number of sstables at L0 
> reaches the reasonable level (32 or something).
> I'm not sure if falling back to STCS is the best way to handle this 
> particular situation. I've read the comment in the code and I'm aware why it 
> is a good thing to do if we have to many sstables at L0 as a result of too 
> many random inserts. We have a lot of sstables, each of them covers the whole 
> ring, there's simply no better option.
> However, after the bootstrap situation looks a bit different. The loaded 
> sstables already have very small ranges! We just have to tidy up a bit and 
> everything should be OK. STCS ignores that completely and after a while we 
> have a bit less sstables but each of them covers the whole ring instead of 
> just a small part. I believe that in that case letting LCS do the job is a 
> better option that allowing STCS mix everything up before.
> Is there a way to disable STCS fallback? I'd like to test that scenario in 
> practice during our next bootstrap...
> Does Cassandra really have to put streamed sstables at L0? The only thing we 
> have to assure is that sstables at any given level do not overlap. If we 
> stream different regions from different nodes how can we get any overlaps?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to