cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cassandra vs hbase summary (was facebook messaging)
Date Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:06:50 GMT
I already noticed a mistake in my own facts...

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Jeske <davidj@gmail.com> wrote:

> *4) Cassandra (N3/W3/R1) takes longer to allow data to become writable
> again in the face of a node-failure than HBase/HDFS.* Cassandra must
> repair the keyrange to bring N from 2 to 3 to resume allowing writes with
> W=3. HDFS can still acheive a 2 node quorum in the face of a node failure.
> (note, using N3/W2 requires R2, see #3) (note, this still doesn't produce
> the same consistency situation as hbase, see #1.)
>

This should read:

*4) Cassandra (N3/W3/R1) takes longer to allow data to become writable again
in the face of a node-failure than HBase/HDFS in the face of an HDFS node
failure.* Cassandra must repair the keyrange to bring N from 2 to 3 to
resume allowing writes with W=3. HDFS can still acheive a 2 node quorum in
the face of a node failure. (note, using N3/W2 requires R2, see #3) (note,
this still doesn't produce the same consistency situation as hbase, see
#1.)

Mime
View raw message