Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1D49BCF3 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34160 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2012 06:03:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 33791 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2012 06:03:27 -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 33783 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jan 2012 06:03:19 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:03:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of scode@scode.org designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.44] (HELO mail-ww0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:03:10 +0000 Received: by wgbdq11 with SMTP id dq11so138938wgb.25 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:02:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.102.169 with SMTP id fp9mr49242049wib.9.1327039368908; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:02:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: scode@scode.org Received: by 10.180.94.105 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:02:48 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [71.202.44.53] In-Reply-To: <4F18F8EE.40608@rightscale.com> References: <4F18F8EE.40608@rightscale.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:02:48 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2Nw4Xv1xz0a3nTMcwXN7Uz2UE70 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ideal cluster size From: Peter Schuller To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > We're embarking on a project where we estimate we will need on the order > of 100 cassandra nodes. The data set is perfectly partitionable, meaning > we have no queries that need to have access to all the data at once. We > expect to run with RF=2 or =3. Is there some notion of ideal cluster > size? Or perhaps asked differently, would it be easier to run one large > cluster or would it be easier to run a bunch of, say, 16 node clusters? > Everything we've done to date has fit into 4-5 node clusters. Certain things certainly becomes harder with many nodes just due to the shear amount; increased need to automate administrative tasks, etc. But mostly, this would apply equally to e.g. 10 clusters of 10 nodes, as it does to one cluster of 100 nodes. I'd prefer running one cluster unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise, just because it means you have "one" thing to keep track of both mentally and in terms of e.g. monitoring/alerting instead of having another level of grouping applied to your hosts. I can't think of significant benefits to small clusters that still hold true when you have many of them, as opposed to a correspondingly big single cluster. It is probably more useful to try to select hardware such that you have a greater number of smaller nodes, than it is to focus on node count (although once you start reaching the "few hundreds" level you're entering territory of less actual real-life production testing). -- / Peter Schuller (@scode, http://worldmodscode.wordpress.com)