cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matt Su" <MATT...@morningstar.com>
Subject RE: Digg 4 Preview on TWiT
Date Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:13:16 GMT
Thanks for all your guys' information.

This thread make us raised a concern: we choose Cassandra because FB,Twitter,Digg are using
them, and we're doubting whether Cassandra is definitely trustable.

The question is what action will we take, if after a few time, these big tech company really
start to leave Cassandra.

 

Will we have the confidence to trust Apache Cassandra, instead of following these tech company's
storage solution. :-)

 

Thanks and Regards.

________________________________

From: Prashant Malik [mailto:pmalik@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:36 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org; bill@dehora.net
Subject: Re: Digg 4 Preview on TWiT

 

I have gone through the appropriate channel  here  at FB  to make sure that 
the correct information is presented.

the article has now been updated to 

" (Update: just for reference, we're told via email that Facebook, "no longer contributes
to nor uses Cassandra." Update 2: we are now being told - and Facebook has confirmed - that
Cassandra is actually still employed by the company for, among other things, Inbox Search.)
"

Thanks
Prashant

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Bill de hÓra <bill@dehora.net> wrote:

Nonetheless, thanks for clearing that one up. And that's some serious
volume you've got there :)

Bill


On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:01 -0700, Prashant Malik wrote:
> This is a ridiculous statement by some newbie I guess , We today have
> a 150 node Cassandra cluster running Inbox search supporting close to
> 500M users
> and over 150TB of data  growing rapidly everyday.
>
> I am on pager for this monster :) so its pretty funny to hear this
> statement.
>
> - Prashant
>

> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Avinash Lakshman
> <avinash.lakshman@gmail.com> wrote:
>         FB Inbox Search still runs on Cassandra and will continue to
>         do so. I should know since I maintain it :).
>
>         Cheers
>         Avinash
>
>
>
>         On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, David Strauss
>         <david@fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>                 On 2010-07-05 15:40, Eric Evans wrote:
>                 > On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 13:14 +0100, Bill de hÓra
>                 wrote:
>                 >> This person's understanding is that Facebook 'no
>                 longer contributes to
>                 >> nor uses Cassandra.':
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/05/17/beyond-cassandra/
>                 >
>                 > Last I heard, Facebook was still using Cassandra for
>                 what they had
>                 > always used it for, Inbox Search. Last I heard,
>                 there were no plans in
>                 > place to change that.
>
>
>                 I had the opportunity to talk with some Facebook
>                 infrastructure
>                 engineers in San Francisco over the past few weeks.
>                 They are no longer
>                 using Cassandra, even for inbox search.
>
>                 Inbox search was intended to be an initial push for
>                 using Cassandra more
>                 broadly, not the primary target of the Cassandra
>                 design. Unfortunately,
>                 Facebook's engineers later decided that Cassandra
>                 wasn't the right
>                 answer to the right question for Facebook's purposes.
>
>                 That decision isn't an indictment of Cassandra's
>                 capability; it's
>                 confirmation that Cassandra isn't everything to
>                 everyone. But we already
>                 knew that. :-)
>
>                 --
>                 David Strauss
>                   | david@fourkitchens.com
>                   | +1 512 577 5827 [mobile]
>                 Four Kitchens
>                   | http://fourkitchens.com
>                   | +1 512 454 6659 [office]
>                   | +1 512 870 8453 [direct]
>
>
>
>



 


Mime
View raw message