ecapriolo's testing seemed to indicate it _did_ change the behavior. wonder what the difference is?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Mikio Braun <mi...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > thanks for your comments, and I'm glad that you found my post helpful. > > Concerning the incremental CMS, I've recently updated my post and added > the experiments repeated on one of our cluster nodes, and for some > reason incremental CMS doesn't look that different anymore. So I guess > it's ok to stick with the non-incremental CMS for now. > > - -M > > On 08/27/2010 09:12 AM, Peter Schuller wrote: >>> Whether or not this is likely to happen with Cassandra I don't know. I >>> don't know much about the incremental duty cycles are scheduled and it >>> may be the case that Cassandra is not even remotely close to having a >>> problem with incremental mode. >> >> I should further weaken my statement by pointing out that I never did >> any exhaustive tweaking to get around the problem (other than >> disabling incremental mode, since my primary goal has tended to be >> ensure low pause times and not so much even GC activity). It may be >> the case that even in stressful cases where it fails by default it is >> simply a matter of tweaking. >> >> So, I guess I should re-phrase: In terms of just turning on >> incremental mode without at least application specific tweaking (if >> not deployment specific testing), I would suggest caution. >> >> > > > - -- > Dr. Mikio Braun email: mi...@cs.tu-berlin.de > TU Berlin web: ml.cs.tu-berlin.de/~mikio > Franklinstr. 28/29 tel: +49 30 314 78627 > 10587 Berlin, Germany > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkx3vFUACgkQtnXKX8rQtgDUlgCfWb/euA2mgVJAWDY2tBSyAN+I > 604AoKVua1+5bYK2yF9CWwFQmLHDt0Fn > =CIal > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
