Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 34295 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2010 17:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2010 17:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 23727 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2010 17:11:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 23653 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2010 17:11:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 23645 invoked by uid 99); 21 Nov 2010 17:11:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:11:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fiedler.andre@googlemail.com designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.172] (HELO mail-yx0-f172.google.com) (209.85.213.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:11:34 +0000 Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so936849yxk.31 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=CXP08LNnbbw+InA80YyJ7ZT/ZMpR/acLr2EWJTs3jOs=; b=HZhjBGTeTMVGHTgk/86tQS2o7cCpVNmNADbAjLJscryVf4GhHB4WhbnwgS+I3xM/UO Y11Rt++iNuYsl65qPhq0a5cJlkOPLsu1uzs6uwwnQYPyPXkKZ1Fi89lyy7OoI6CakK8R mZeLVLHNJFPn41p82WBZO7VlOjm5MwDBXBpwo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=o1GWFAQJhWHs56+LthVXBkY7yAmvcBpz4xMXKsk8zlZULqMON/RrrGqisPHw03Fukg /Lxso8C4ROeNX8GKAQiZPhiMYudkKVnbSHDJPI+AAeGFfN468/I+B+w5Se0aE31zTUoZ S4QZb7wb2xfXA+LpJXSkijlvWpr/1T8F5cZsY= Received: by 10.90.120.20 with SMTP id s20mr5885533agc.132.1290359472371; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.115.10 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:10:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Fiedler?= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:10:52 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Facebook messaging and choice of HBase over Cassandra - what can we learn? To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163628371cfbb6e104959339c5 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --00163628371cfbb6e104959339c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Facebook Messaging =E2=80=93 HBase Comes of Age http://facility9.com/2010/11/18/facebook-messaging-hbase-comes-of-age 2010/11/21 David Boxenhorn > Eventual consistency is not good enough for instant messaging. > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Simon Reavely w= rote: > >> (Posting this to both user + dev lists) >> >> I was reviewing the blog post on the facebook engineering blog from nov >> 15th >> http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=3D454991608919# >> >> The Underlying Technology of Messages >> by Kannan Muthukkaruppan >> >> >> >> >> As a cassandra user I think the key sentence for this community is: >> "We found Cassandra's eventual consistency model to be a difficult patte= rn >> to reconcile for our new Messages infrastructure." >> >> I think it would be useful to find out more about this statement from >> Kannan >> and the facebook team. Does anyone have any contacts in the Facebook tea= m? >> >> My goal here is to understand usage patterns and whether or not the >> Cassandra community can learn from this decision; maybe even understand >> whether the Cassandra roadmap should be influenced by this decision to >> address a target user base. Of course we might also conclude that its ju= st >> "not a Cassandra use-case"! >> >> Cheers, >> Simon >> -- >> Simon Reavely >> simon.reavely@gmail.com >> > > --00163628371cfbb6e104959339c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Facebook Messaging =E2=80=93 HBase Comes of Age

http://facility9.com/2010/11/18/facebook-messaging-hbase-comes-of-ag= e


2010/11/21 David Bo= xenhorn <david@lo= okin2.com>
Eventual consistency is no= t good enough for instant messaging.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Simon Reavely <simon.reavely@gmail.= com> wrote:
(Posting this to both user + dev lists)

I was reviewing the blog post on the facebook engineering blog from nov
15th
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=3D454991608919# <http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=3D454991608919#>
The Underlying Technology of Messages
by Kannan Muthukkaruppan <http://www.facebook.com/Kannan>




As a cassandra user I think the key sentence for this community is:
"We found Cassandra's eventual consistency model to be a difficult= pattern
to reconcile for our new Messages infrastructure."

I think it would be useful to find out more about this statement from Kanna= n
and the facebook team. Does anyone have any contacts in the Facebook team?<= br>
My goal here is to understand usage patterns and whether or not the
Cassandra community can learn from this decision; maybe even understand
whether the Cassandra roadmap should be influenced by this decision to
address a target user base. Of course we might also conclude that its just<= br> "not a Cassandra use-case"!

Cheers,
Simon
--
Simon Reavely
simon.reavely@= gmail.com


--00163628371cfbb6e104959339c5--