Sounds like it would be best if it were in a separate jar for people? On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Bill wrote:
> > Thoughts? > > > > We'll turn this off, and would possibly patch it out of the code. That's not > to say it wouldn't be useful to others. > > Bill > > > On 15/11/11 23:23, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> I started a "users survey" thread over on the users list (replies are >> still trickling in), but as useful as that is, I'd like to get >> feedback that is more quantitative and with a broader base. This will >> let us prioritize our development efforts to better address what >> people are actually using it for, with less guesswork. For instance: >> we put a lot of effort into compression for 1.0.0; if it turned out >> that only 1% of 1.0.x users actually enable compression, then it means >> that we should spend less effort fine-tuning that moving forward, and >> use the energy elsewhere. >> >> (Of course it could also mean that we did a terrible job getting the >> word out about new features and explaining how to use them, but either >> way, it would be good to know!) >> >> I propose adding a basic cluster reporting feature to cassandra.yaml, >> enabled by default. It would send anonymous information about your >> cluster to an apache.org VM. Information like, number (but not names) >> of keyspaces and columnfamilies, ks-level options like compression, cf >> options like compaction strategy, data types (again, not names) of >> columns, average row size (or better: the histogram data), and average >> sstables per read. >> >> Thoughts? >> > >
