On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Sean Bridges wrote:
> But doesn't having multiple similarly sized column families mean in-node
> compaction does not require 50% of disk? Looking at compaction manager,
> only 1 thread is doing a compaction, so we only need enough free disk space
> to compact the
But doesn't having multiple similarly sized column families mean in-node
compaction does not require 50% of disk? Looking at compaction manager,
only 1 thread is doing a compaction, so we only need enough free disk space
to compact the largest column family.
Sean
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00 AM
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sean Bridges wrote:
> So after CASSANDRA-579, anti compaction won't be done on the source node,
> and we can use more than 50% of the disk space if we use multiple column
> families?
Sorry if I misunderstand, but #579 seems to only solve half of your question,
I b
for some
> background here: I was just about to start working on this one, but it won't
> make it in until 0.7.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Sean Bridges"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:50am
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: using m
che.org
Subject: using more than 50% of disk space
We're investigating Cassandra, and we are looking for a way to get Cassandra
use more than 50% of it's data disks. Is this possible?
For major compactions, it looks like we can use more than 50% of the disk if
we use multiple similarly size
We're investigating Cassandra, and we are looking for a way to get Cassandra
use more than 50% of it's data disks. Is this possible?
For major compactions, it looks like we can use more than 50% of the disk if
we use multiple similarly sized column families. If we had 10 column
families of the s
