Re: compact/repair shouldn't compete for normal compaction resources.

2015-10-19 Thread Kevin Burton
Yes.. .it's not currently possible :) I think it should be. Say the IO on your C* is at 60% utilization. If you do a repair, this would require 120% utilization obviously not possible, so now your app is down / offline until the repair finishes. If you could throttle repair separately this woul

Re: compact/repair shouldn't compete for normal compaction resources.

2015-10-19 Thread Robert Coli
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Kevin Burton wrote: > I think the point I was trying to make is that on highly loaded boxes, > repair should take lower priority than normal compactions. > You can manually do this by changing the thread priority of compaction threads which you somhow identify a

Re: compact/repair shouldn't compete for normal compaction resources.

2015-10-19 Thread Kevin Burton
I think the point I was trying to make is that on highly loaded boxes, repair should take lower priority than normal compactions. Having a throttle on *both* doesn't solve the problem. So I need a setcompactionthroughput and a setrepairthroughput and total througput would be the sum of both.

Re: compact/repair shouldn't compete for normal compaction resources.

2015-10-19 Thread Sebastian Estevez
The validation compaction part of repair is susceptible to the compaction throttling knob `nodetool getcompactionthroughput` / `nodetool setcompactionthroughput` and you can use that to tune down the resources that are being used by repair. Check out this post by driftx on advanced repair techniqu

compact/repair shouldn't compete for normal compaction resources.

2015-10-18 Thread Kevin Burton
I'm doing a big nodetool repair right now and I'm pretty sure the added overhead is impacting our performance. Shouldn't you be able to throttle repair so that normal compactions can use most of the resources? -- We’re hiring if you know of any awesome Java Devops or Linux Operations Engineers!