cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Alexander <Jason.Alexan...@match.com>
Subject RE: Integrity of batch_insert and also what about sharding?
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:58:18 GMT
FWIW, I'd love to see some guidance here too -

>From our standpoint, we'll be consolidating the various Match.com sites' (match.com, chemistry.com,
etc...) data into a single data warehouse, running Cassandra. We're looking at roughly the
same amounts of data (30TB's or more). We were assuming 3-5 big servers sitting atop a SAN.
But, again, just a guess and following existing conventions we use for other systems.


________________________________________
From: banks [banksenus@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:47 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Integrity of batch_insert and also what about sharding?

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is what is the break even point...

If I'm going to store 30terabytes in this thing... whats optimum to give me performance and
scalability... is it best to be running 3 powerfull nodes, 100 smaller nodes, nodes on each
web blade with 300g behind each...  ya know?  I'm sure there is a point where the gossip chatter
becomes overwelming and ups and downs to each... I have not really seen a best practices document
that gives the pro's and con's to each method of scaling.

one 64proc 90gig memory mega machine running a single node cassandra... but on a raid5 SAN,
good? bad?  why?

30 web blades each running a cassandra node, each with 1tb local raid5 storage, good, bad,
why?

I get that every implimentation is different, what I'm looking for is what the known proven
optimum is for this software... and whats to be avoided because its a given that it dosnt
work.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us<mailto:b@b3k.us>> wrote:
That depends on your goals for fault tolerance and recovery time.  If
you use RAID1 (or other redundant configuration) you can tolerate disk
failure without Cassandra having to do repair.  For large data sets,
that can be a significant win.


b

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:02 PM, banks <banksenus@gmail.com<mailto:banksenus@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> Then from an IT standpoint, if i'm using a RF of 3, it stands to reason that
> running on Raid 1 makes sense, since RAID and RF achieve the same ends... it
> makes sense to strip for speed and let cassandra deal with redundancy, eh?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us<mailto:b@b3k.us>>
wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:41 PM, banks <banksenus@gmail.com<mailto:banksenus@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>> >
>> > 2. each cassandra node essentially has the same datastore as all nodes,
>> > correct?
>>
>> No.  The ReplicationFactor you set determines how many copies of a
>> piece of data you want.  If your number of nodes is higher than your
>> RF, as is common, you will not have the same data on all nodes.  The
>> exact set of nodes to which data is replicated is determined by the
>> row key, placement strategy, and node tokens.
>>
>> > So if I've got 3 terabytes of data and 3 cassandra nodes I'm
>> > eating 9tb on the SAN?  are there provisions for essentially sharding
>> > across
>> > nodes... so that each node only handles a given keyrange, if so where is
>> > the
>> > howto on that?
>> >
>>
>> Sharding is a concept from databases that don't have native
>> replication and so need a term to describe what they bolt on for the
>> functionality.  Distribution amongst nodes based on key ranges is how
>> Cassandra always operates.
>>
>>
>> b
>
>


Mime
View raw message