cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Goffinet>
Subject Re: commodity server spec
Date Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:05:10 GMT
It will also depend on how long you can handle recovery time. So imagine
this case:

3 nodes w/ RF of 3
Each node has 30TB of space used (you never want to fill up entire node).
If one node fails and you must recover, that will take over 3.6 days in
just transferring data alone. That's with a sustained 800megabit/s
(100MB/s). In the real world it's going to fluctuate so add some padding.
Also, since you will be saturating one of the other nodes, now you're
network latency performance is suffering and you only have 1 machine to
handle the remaining traffic while you're recovering. And if you want to
expand the cluster in the future (more nodes), the amount of data to
transfer is going to be very large and most likely days to add machines.
>From my experience it's must better to have a larger cluster setup upfront
for future growth than getting by with 6-12 nodes at the start. You will
feel less pain, easier to manage node failures (bad disks, mem, etc).

3 nodes with RF of 1 wouldn't make sense.

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM, China Stoffen <>wrote:

> Many small servers would drive up the hosting cost way too high so want to
> avoid this solution if we can.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Radim Kolar <>
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: commodity server spec
> many smaller servers way better

View raw message