cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is that possible to write a file system over Cassandra?
Date Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:57:40 GMT
Thanks, Nathan.



On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Nathan McCall <nate@vervewireless.com>wrote:

> In regards to hector, please check all the available branches on
> github. We have supported 0.6 for a little while now.
>
> http://github.com/rantav/hector/tree/0.6.0
>
> The master is still based on 0.5, but that is changing in the next
> couple of days to match the 0.6 release.
>
> -Nate
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjffdu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > Previously we use the cassandra-0.6, but we'd like to leverage the hector
> > java client since it has more advanced features. And hector currently
> only
> > support cassandra-0.5.
> > Why you think using casandra-0.5 is a stange way to do it ? Is
> cassandra-0.6
> > incompatibility with cassandra-0.5 ? The migration to cassandra-0.6 will
> > cost much ?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> You forked Cassandra 0.5 for that?
> >>
> >> That's... a strange way to do it.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjffdu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > We are currently doing such things, and now we are still at the start
> >> > stage.
> >> > Currently we only plan to store small files. For large files,
> splitting
> >> > to
> >> > small blocks is really one of our options.
> >> > You can check out from here http://code.google.com/p/cassandra-fs/
> >> >
> >> > Document for this project is lack now, but still welcome any feedback
> >> > and
> >> > contribution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Miguel Verde <
> miguelitovert@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Avinash Lakshman
> >> >> <avinash.lakshman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> OPP is not required here. You would be better off using a Random
> >> >>> partitioner because you want to get a random distribution of the
> >> >>> metadata.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not required, certainly.  However, it strikes me that 1 cluster is
> >> >> better
> >> >> than 2, and most consumers of a filesystem would expect to be able
to
> >> >> get an
> >> >> ordered listing or tree of the metadata which is easy using the OPP
> row
> >> >> key
> >> >> pattern listed previously.  You could still do this with the Random
> >> >> partitioner using column names in rows to describe the structure but
> >> >> the
> >> >> current compaction limitations could be an issue if a branch becomes
> >> >> too
> >> >> large, and you'd still have a root row hotspot (at least in the
> schema
> >> >> which
> >> >> comes to mind).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best Regards
> >> >
> >> > Jeff Zhang
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Jeff Zhang
> >
>



-- 
Best Regards

Jeff Zhang

Mime
View raw message