Skip to content

Conversation

@SiyaoIsHiding
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@absurdfarce absurdfarce self-requested a review October 29, 2025 17:29
<groupId>org.apache.cassandra</groupId>
<artifactId>java-driver-core</artifactId>
<version>4.10.0</version>
<version>4.18.0</version>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Want to make sure we've explicitly tested this LBP with this version of the Java driver before we recommend for users to use it. I'm perfectly fine with moving to a newer version of the driver than 4.10.0 as long as we've tested it to make sure there aren't any strange regressions from this version.

This policy leverages real-time measurements and swiftly responds to changes in node status at short intervals, such as those caused by garbage collection or compaction—common factors that can slow down nodes.

However, if you anticipate prolonged delays in node responsiveness, such as during network upgrades or heavy data migrations, you might consider opting for the `LatencyAndInflightCountLoadBalancingPolicy` or `LatencySensitiveLoadBalancingPolicy`.
However, if you anticipate prolonged delays in node responsiveness, such as during network upgrades or heavy data migrations, you might consider opting for the `LatencyAndInflightCountLoadBalancingPolicy`.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I see the point of just removing the policy from the README. The class files for the other LBP are not only in the JAR but also right next to the policy we're recommending.

Seems like the better answer is to be clearer about what the performance characteristics are with the two policies to allow users to make better informed choices about which to use.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants