From user-return-15496-apmail-cassandra-user-archive=cassandra.apache.org@cassandra.apache.org Wed Apr 06 17:26:41 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79731 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2011 17:26:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2011 17:26:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 87427 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2011 17:26:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 87367 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2011 17:26:38 -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 87357 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2011 17:26:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:26:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of s5alye@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.172] (HELO mail-iw0-f172.google.com) (209.85.214.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:26:32 +0000 Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2057503iwn.31 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:26:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JA+5dPsdJjBw6dgiSi53gOox7/cPtesobSlfaTwfXdk=; b=DwApRlh1kwndeHoBOg96/Lif6DurCmSntLTepeGYhb89hs9TkGjHOwzwU3XKJOqO/y Y58G1JejirhRGjcxMWG+IT7nWme/sviRR39JdIlc+loGJVEWcrYZcgspS1D87GcliIgw lRz8Flxwxwwi9Jsffc5ME6567C6p9L3k8SfgM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=xXmpo+LfOWCcf4lopLGrkXYcFVxPlYj83q2jax0yiNV2NZTmcfCHHGn8bsofPZmGxM dh1TndyHMXxzcWDrfpz6JG4sm6KinegbC+BQnbVfVtaxz9Q32e93MT78tq3iY+i2XV79 h/iQKQcvrpr1mF99Orm/R7Ey+rubKhpEOVER0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.16.135 with SMTP id o7mr1237513iba.66.1302110771332; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.11.138 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:26:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:26:11 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: LB scenario From: A J To: Peter Schuller Cc: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I have done some more research. My question now is: 1. From my tests I see that it matters a lot whether the co-ordinator node is local (geographically) to the client or not. I will have a cassandra cluster where nodes will be distributed across the globe. Say 3 in US east_cost, 3 in US west_coast and 3 in europe. Now, if I can help, I would like to have most of the traffic from my california clients being handled by the west_coast nodes. But incase the west_coast nodes are down or slow, the co-ordinator node can be elsewhere. What is the best strategy to give different weight to different nodes, where some nodes are preferred over the others. Thanks. On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Peter Schuller wrote: >> Can someone comment on this ? Or is the question too vague ? > > Honestly yeah I couldn't figure out what you were asking ;) What > specifically about the diagram are you trying to convey? > > -- > / Peter Schuller >