cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan McCall <>
Subject Re: Cassandra and Spring & Terracotta
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:05:21 GMT
Cassandra and Terracotta are "distributed" and can both store data,
but I think the similarities end there. My understanding of Terracotta
from recently evaluating their improvements to quartz is that their
design goals are more focused on distributed and fault tolerant JVM
resource sharing with persistence being more or less based on Ehcache
writing to disk (please correct me if I missed something here). This
approach makes a lot sense when considering storage of "job status" in
a cluster, by I want my persistence of domain data to be in a
different layer than my applications.

Cassandra is more appropriate for a fault tolerant, distributed key
value store because it is a decoupled service that, via Thrift, can be
used with different technologies easily so is a better fit for
persistence in my architecture than Terracotta would be.


On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Erich Nachbar <> wrote:
>> Can we compare Cassandra to Terracotta ?
> I used Terracotta on a previous project and you can think of it as a
> persisted/fault tolerant cache.
> The free version doesn't come with sharding, so your data has to fit on one
> machine.
> Other people I know have used it as a persistence layer (i.e. replacing
> something like an RDBMS/Cassandra/HBase/CoucheDB/etc.) and it failed
> miserably.

View raw message