Simplifying Cassandra Heap Size Allocation
Written by Josh Wickman
As discussed previously, Knewton has a large Cassandra deployment to meet its data store needs. Despite best efforts to standardize configurations across the deployment, the systems are in a near-constant flux. In particular, upgrading the version of Cassandra may be quick for a single cluster but doing so for the entire deployment is usually a lengthy process, due to the overhead involved in bringing legacy stacks up to date.
At the time of this writing, Knewton is in the final stages of a system-wide Cassandra upgrade from Version 1.2 to 2.1. Due to a breaking change in the underlying SSTable format introduced in Version 2.1, this transition must be performed in stages, first from 1.2 to 2.0, then 2.0 to 2.1. While the SSTable format change does not have a direct bearing on the topic of interest here, another change introduced in Version 2.0 is of material importance.
This post describes some nuances of Cassandra’s JVM (maximum) heap memory allocation that we discovered along the way, and how we handled aspects that posed a threat to our systems.
A problem case
Our journey of discovery began with a struggle to address crashes on a particular cluster due to running out of heap memory. For ease of reference, let’s call this cluster Knerd. In our AWS infrastructure, the Knerd cluster was running on
m4.large nodes having 8 GB of memory, and by default Cassandra was allocating 4 GB of heap to each node. After exhausting other options, we decided to migrate the cluster to
m4.xlarge nodes with 16 GB of memory, believing that these larger nodes would be allocated 8 GB of heap.
Imagine our surprise to see the new nodes come up with 4 GB of heap, same as before.
Default heap allocation in Cassandra 1.2
This phenomenon forced us to take a harder look at the code behind the heap allocation, contained in the
cassandra-env.sh config file. The relevant code block, as it ships with Cassandra 1.2, is contained in the function
# set max heap size based on the following
# max(min(1/2 ram, 4096MB), min(1/4 ram, 8GB))
# calculate 1/2 ram and cap to 4096MB
# calculate 1/4 ram and cap to 8192MB
# pick the max
half_system_memory_in_mb=`expr $system_memory_in_mb / 2`
quarter_system_memory_in_mb=`expr $half_system_memory_in_mb / 2`
if [ "$half_system_memory_in_mb" -gt "4096" ]
if [ "$quarter_system_memory_in_mb" -gt "8192" ]
if [ "$half_system_memory_in_mb" -gt "$quarter_system_memory_in_mb" ]
In short, this code block imposes a cap on each of two parameters, then uses the larger parameter as the maximum heap size.
The graph below shows the heap size in GB as a function of the system memory (also in GB), up to the absolute cap of an 8 GB heap. (We’ll focus on integer values for ease of discussion.)
The heap size scales linearly as half the system memory up to 4 GB, then plateaus for systems with total memory between 8 GB and 16 GB. This is precisely the range of values for which we observed a steady maximum heap size of 4 GB on the Knerd cluster.
This plateau is a direct consequence of the half-memory parameter in the shell code being capped at a smaller value than the quarter-memory parameter. While scrutiny of the shell code above will show exactly the behavior displayed in the graph, a new user is unlikely to see this coming, especially in the typical NoSQL climate with short time scales and developer-managed data stores. Indeed, since Cassandra’s heap scales with system memory, it is reasonable to assume that it will scale smoothly for all values of the system memory below the cap. The plateau is at odds with this assumption, and therefore constitutes behavior that might be deemed unpredictable or counterintuitive, and can disrupt provisioning and capacity planning. In other words, this internal Cassandra feature violates the Principle of Least Surprise.
Beyond the plateau, the curve begins to rise linearly again, this time scaling as one-quarter of system memory. Then, at a system memory of 32 GB, the heap size reaches the absolute cap of 8 GB.
Modified heap allocation in Cassandra 1.2
If you’re using Cassandra 1.2, we strongly recommend doing something about this plateau in order for your nodes to scale predictably. Here are some options.
The 8 GB cap is generally desirable, because if the heap is too large then stop-the-world garbage collection cycles will take longer and can cause downstream failures. On the other hand, the system memory value upon reaching the cap is not terribly important. It could be 32 GB, as in the default scheme, or it could be 24 GB with little noticeable difference. Thus the plateau can be eliminated in one of two ways:
- Keep the remaining features, shifting the transition points to lower system memory values.
- Take the average over the values less than system memory of 16 GB, which yields a simple one-quarter slope up to the cap.
Averaging is simpler, but it may not be suitable for small values of system memory. Either approach can be achieved with a simple set of conditionals specifying the scaling for each segment; for example, the first could be coded like
if [ "$system_memory_in_mb" -lt "8192" ]
elif [ "$system_memory_in_mb" -lt "24576" ]
Either approach eliminates the undesirable plateau. An upgrade to Cassandra 2.0 or above also effectively removes its impact.
Heap allocation in Cassandra 2.0+
Cassandra 2.0 introduced a change in heap allocation, although this change was easy to miss since it did not get highlighted in the What’s new in Cassandra post for 2.0.
The change is a small one: the cap of the one-half-memory variable was changed from 4 GB to 1 GB, such that the plateau occurs at a heap size of 1 GB and extends from system memory values of 2 GB to 4 GB. While the plateau still exists, it is no longer an issue for systems having memory greater than 4 GB. Production systems will doubtless be running with more memory than this, so upgrading alone will solve the scaling predictability issue in nearly all cases.
However, systems previously operating with system memory at or below 16 GB will have a smaller heap after upgrading from 1.2 to 2.0+. This is because the heap now scales as one-quarter of the system memory for a broader range of memory values than it did on Cassandra 1.2. Although the picture hasn’t changed for high-memory systems, this shift to smaller heaps can cause further problems on systems with relatively small node memory, such as the Knerd cluster.
Moving memtables off heap in Cassandra 2.1
The change in the cap in Cassandra 2.0 may be related to the effort to move more Cassandra components off of the JVM heap. Version 2.0 offered off-heap partition summaries, and version 2.1 introduced the ability to move memtables off heap. These features make a smaller heap size desirable in order to make room for the memtable components in off-heap memory.
Your heap may behave better, at the tradeoff of possible out-of-memory events at the system level. Since each Java process allocates a separate heap, other Java processes running on the same machine (e.g. Datastax OpsCenter) will result in less memory available for Cassandra’s off-heap components. In the extreme case, the operating system may kill the Cassandra process or crash altogether, producing identical behavior to the heap-crash case from the perspective of the application (i.e. Cassandra is not available on that node).
At first, we applied a Band-Aid fix in Cassandra 1.2 to always allocate a heap size equal to half the system memory. This worked reasonably well, until migrating to 2.1. The relevant change to configuration templates had only been made for Cassandra 1.2, and other versions fell back to the default allocation code (which is how we discovered the properties described in this post).
That’s when we decided it was time to do some testing. We had three options:
- Move only the memtable buffers off heap (
- Move both the memtable buffers and the objects off heap (
- Leave the memtables on heap and raise the heap size.
We regarded raising the heap size as our fallback, since we knew how the system would behave if we did that. Due to considerations related to scaling (e.g. data size growth), we weren’t very confident that any testing would yield a clear choice of how large to make the heap. In the end, then, this amounted to simply raising the maximum heap size to half the system memory. While doing so would be nice and simple, we hesitated to make our Cassandra installation deviate this much from the base installation.
So we experimented with off-heap memtables. As noted earlier, moving components off of the heap appears to be related to why the maximum heap size calculation was changed in the first place. Moreover, moving both the memtable buffers and the objects off heap is slated to become the default behavior in a future release of Cassandra, which led us to believe that this option’s performance is good enough that it is recommended in most cases.
offheap_objects showed good results in tests, reducing the stress on the heap and system performance overall relative to
heap_buffers (the default configuration). As expected, the GC time was lowest for
offheap_objects, as was the end-to-end processing time. To our surprise, however,
offheap_buffers was the star performer. This setting yielded the best numbers while maintaining the most consistent read and write rates. In some of these measures, such as percentage of heap used and GC pause time,
offheap_buffers narrowly edged out
offheap_objects. In others, notably write latency, bloom filter false-positive ratio, and average response time,
offheap_buffers was the clear winner. This performance was enough to convince us to move forward with
After deploying this change, we mostly saw positive results. Unfortunately, we did still sometimes see some transient high-heap events, mostly on clusters with the large data sets. On the other hand, these events were not accompanied by crashes. This caused us to reevaluate our longstanding alert threshold for heap usage, whereupon we concluded that our threshold needed some tuning. This resolved the remainder of the issue.
In summary, investigation of some puzzling behavior revealed unexpected heap allocation details in Cassandra’s internal configuration. Studying the configuration code allowed us to evaluate our options to address the behavior we originally observed. Our goal was to yield more predictable heap allocation results when scaling a cluster without impeding Cassandra’s performance. We achieved this by moving the memtable buffers off heap, which is possible in Cassandra 2.1+.