That makes sense. My data is coming in from the internet and is being
processed in chunks as it is using Active MQ with the stomp package. I'm
getting the log lines in 20-1000 line chunks (depending on the busyness of
customer sites) so there definitely is the potential for a lot of
parallelism. So
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:50:38 -0700 Mike Gallamore
wrote:
MG> Yes I agree single threaded is probably not the best. I wonder how
MG> much of a performance hit it is on a single CPU machine though? I
MG> guess I still would be blocking on ram writes but isn't like there is
MG> multiple CPUs I nee
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:16:34 -0700 Mike Gallamore
wrote:
MG> Hopefully my fix helps others. I imagine it is something you'll run
MG> into regardless of the language/interface you use, for example I'm
MG> pretty sure that the C/C++ time function truncates values too. I'd
MG> recommend anyone usi
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:56:55 -0500 Jonathan Ellis wrote:
JE> is N:C:E possibly ignoring thrift exceptions?
I always pass them down to the user. The user is responsible for
wrapping with eval().
Ted
At Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:41:30 -0700,
Mike Gallamore wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On 04/08/2010 04:53 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
> > At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
> > Mike Gallamore wrote:
> >
> >> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
> >> after a write is still get
On 04/08/2010 11:46 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Mike Gallamore
wrote:
Hello. If you are doing exactly the same thing as N::C::Easy (ie a join on
the gettimeofday). Then you should have the same problem I found a fix for.
The problem is that the microseconds val
On 04/08/2010 05:53 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:53:48 +0100 Philip Jackson
wrote:
PJ> At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
PJ> Mike Gallamore wrote:
I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
after a write is still getting an old value. I r
I'll work on making a benchmark sometime latter. But I don't think that
my changes would be batched. My rows only have one column and for this
test each row is only accessed once (when it is written), I pretty much
directly mapped over from a key value store that was using memcache before.
It
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Mike Gallamore
wrote:
> Hello. If you are doing exactly the same thing as N::C::Easy (ie a join on
> the gettimeofday). Then you should have the same problem I found a fix for.
> The problem is that the microseconds value isn't zero padded. So if you are
> at say 2
On 04/08/2010 04:53 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
Mike Gallamore wrote:
I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is
"eventually consistent" but this system is a sin
On 04/07/2010 01:31 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:19 -0700, Mike Gallamore wrote:
I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read
shortly after a write is still getting an old value. I realize
Cassandra is "eventually consistent" but this system is a single C
is N:C:E possibly ignoring thrift exceptions?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Gallamore
wrote:
> On 04/08/2010 04:53 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
>>
>> At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
>> Mike Gallamore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortl
On 04/08/2010 04:53 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
Mike Gallamore wrote:
I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is
"eventually consistent" but this system is a sin
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700 Mike Gallamore
wrote:
MG> As an aside I motified some other code to use Net::Cassandra instead
MG> of Net::Cassandra::Easy and noticed that it seems to run 3-4X
MG> slower. Both aren't stunningly fast. The test clients are running on
MG> the same machine as Ca
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:53:48 +0100 Philip Jackson
wrote:
PJ> At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
PJ> Mike Gallamore wrote:
>>
>> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
>> after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is
>> "eventually consi
At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700,
Mike Gallamore wrote:
>
> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
> after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is
> "eventually consistent" but this system is a single CPU single node with
> consistency le
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:19 -0700, Mike Gallamore wrote:
> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read
> shortly after a write is still getting an old value. I realize
> Cassandra is "eventually consistent" but this system is a single CPU
> single node with consistency level set
I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly
after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is
"eventually consistent" but this system is a single CPU single node with
consistency level set to 1, so this seems odd to me.
My setup:
Cassandra 0.6rc1
18 matches
Mail list logo
