[GitHub] [kafka-site] ableegoldman commented on a change in pull request #301: Redo 2.6 docs commit
ableegoldman commented on a change in pull request #301: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/301#discussion_r485154723 ## File path: 26/streams/developer-guide/memory-mgmt.html ## @@ -202,7 +202,10 @@ RocksDB} } -1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72";>LRUCache constructor. +1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72";>LRUCache constructor. + NOTE: the boolean parameter in the cache constructor lets you control whether the cache should enforce a strict memory limit by failing the read or iteration in the rare cases where it might go larger than its capacity. Due to a + https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/6247";>bug in RocksDB, this option cannot be used + if the write buffer memory is also counted against the cache. If you set this to true, you should NOT pass the cache in to the WriteBufferManager and just control the write buffer and cache memory separately. Review comment: Nope, this is correct. As far as I know this has always been the case in every RocksDB version we've depended on but didn't discover the bug until just recently. (I believe it actually is fixed in some newer versions, so we may be able to remove this again once we upgrade) This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [kafka-site] ableegoldman commented on a change in pull request #301: Redo 2.6 docs commit
ableegoldman commented on a change in pull request #301: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/301#discussion_r485154723 ## File path: 26/streams/developer-guide/memory-mgmt.html ## @@ -202,7 +202,10 @@ RocksDB} } -1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72";>LRUCache constructor. +1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72";>LRUCache constructor. + NOTE: the boolean parameter in the cache constructor lets you control whether the cache should enforce a strict memory limit by failing the read or iteration in the rare cases where it might go larger than its capacity. Due to a + https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/6247";>bug in RocksDB, this option cannot be used + if the write buffer memory is also counted against the cache. If you set this to true, you should NOT pass the cache in to the WriteBufferManager and just control the write buffer and cache memory separately. Review comment: Nope, this is correct. My original commit had a few other fixes on the side in addition to the KIP-441/KIP-613 docs As far as I know this has always been the case in every RocksDB version we've depended on but didn't discover the bug until just recently. (I believe it actually is fixed in some newer versions, so we may be able to remove this again once we upgrade) This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
