Are you sure you’re blocked on internode and not commitlog? Batch is typically 
not what people expect (group commitlog in 4.0 is probably closer to what you 
think batch does).

-- 
Jeff Jirsa


> On Nov 27, 2018, at 10:55 PM, Yuji Ito <y...@phact-columba.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for the reply.
> I've measured LWT throughput in 4.0.
> 
> I used the cassandra-stress tool to insert rows with LWT for 3 minutes on 
> i3.xlarge and i3.4xlarge
> For 3.11, I modified the tool to support LWT.
> Before each measurement, I cleaned up all Cassandra data.
> 
> The throughput in 4.0 is 5 % faster than 3.11.
> The CPU load of i3.4xlarge (16 vCPUs) is only up to 75% in both versions.
> And, the throughput was slower than 4 times that of i3.xlarge.
> I think the throughput wasn't bounded by CPU also in 4.0.
> 
> The CPU load of i3.4xlarge is up to 80 % with non-LWT write.
> 
> I wonder what is the bottleneck for writes on a many-core machine if the 
> issue about messaging has been resolved in 4.0.
> Can I use up CPU to insert rows by changing any parameter?
> 
> # LWT insert
> * Cassandra 3.11.3
> | instance type | # of threads | concurrent_writes | Throughput [op/s] |
> |     i3.xlarge |           64 |                32 |              2815 |
> |    i3.4xlarge |          256 |               128 |              9506 |
> |    i3.4xlarge |          512 |               256 |             10540 |
> 
> * Cassandra 4.0 (trunk)
> | instance type | # of threads | concurrent_writes | Throughput [op/s] |
> |     i3.xlarge |           64 |                32 |              2951 |
> |    i3.4xlarge |          256 |               128 |              9816 |
> |    i3.4xlarge |          512 |               256 |             11055 |
> 
> * Environment
> - 3 node cluster
> - Replication factor: 3
> - Node instance: AWS EC2 i3.xlarge / i3.4xlarge
> 
> * C* configuration
> - Apache Cassandra 3.11.3 / 4.0 (trunk)
> - commitlog_sync: batch
> - concurrent_writes: 32, 256
> - native_transport_max_threads: 128(default), 256 (when concurrent_writes is 
> 256)
> 
> Thanks,
> Yuji
> 
> 
> 2018年11月26日(月) 17:27 sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com>:
>> Inter-node messaging is rewritten using Netty in 4.0. It will be better to 
>> test it using that as potential changes will mostly land on top of that. 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:39 AM Yuji Ito <y...@phact-columba.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I'm investigating LWT performance with C* 3.11.3.
>>> It looks that the performance is bounded by messaging latency when many 
>>> requests are issued concurrently.
>>> 
>>> According to the source code, the number of messaging threads per node is 
>>> only 1 thread for incoming and 1 thread for outbound "small" message to 
>>> another node.
>>> 
>>> I guess these threads are frequently interrupted because many threads are 
>>> executed when many requests are issued.
>>> Especially, I think it affects the LWT performance when many LWT requests 
>>> which need lots of inter-node messaging are issued.
>>> 
>>> I measured that latency. It took 2.5 ms in average to enqueue a message at 
>>> a node and to receive the message at the **same** node with 96 concurrent 
>>> LWT writes.
>>> Is it normal? I think it is too big latency, though a message was sent to 
>>> the same node.
>>> 
>>> Decreasing numbers of other threads like `concurrent_counter_writes`, 
>>> `concurrent_materialized_view_writes` reduced a bit the latency.
>>> Can I change any other parameter to reduce the latency?
>>> I've tried using message coalescing, but they didn't reduce that.
>>> 
>>> * Environment
>>> - 3 node cluster
>>> - Replication factor: 3
>>> - Node instance: AWS EC2 i3.xlarge
>>> 
>>> * C* configuration
>>> - Apache Cassandra 3.11.3
>>> - commitlog_sync: batch
>>> - concurrent_reads: 32 (default)
>>> - concurrent_writes: 32 (default)
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yuji
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Reply via email to