cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Theroux <mthero...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Expanding Cassandra on EC2 with consistency
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:07:59 GMT
Yes, I saw LOCAL_QUORUM.  The definition I saw was:

Ensure that the write has been written to <ReplicationFactor> / 2 + 1 nodes, within
the local datacenter (requiresNetworkTopologyStrategy)

This will allow a quorum  within a datacenter.  However, I think this means that if availability
zones are racks, that the quorum would still be across availability zones.

-Mike

On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Robin Verlangen wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> I'm not sure about all your questions, however you should take a look at LOCAL_QUORUM
for your question about consistency level reads/writes.
> 
> 2012/7/3 Michael Theroux <mtheroux2@yahoo.com>
> Hello,
> 
> We are currently running a web application utilizing Cassandra on EC2.  Given the recent
outages experienced with Amazon, we want to consider expanding Cassandra across availability
zones sooner rather than later.
> 
> We are trying to determine the optimal way to deploy Cassandra in this deployment.  We
are researching the NetworkTopologyStrategy, and the EC2Snitch.  We are also interested in
providing a high level of read or write consistency,
> 
> My understanding is that the EC2Snitch recognizes availability zones as racks, and regions
as data-centers.  This seems to be a common configuration.  However, if we were to want to
utilize queries with a READ or WRITE consistency of QUORUM, would there be a high possibility
that the communication necessary to establish a quorum, across availability zones?
> 
> My understanding is that the NetworkTopologyStrategy attempts to prefer replicas be stored
on other racks within the datacenter, which would equate to other availability zones in EC2.
 This implies to me that in order to have the quorum of nodes necessary to achieve consistency,
that Cassandra will communicate with nodes across availability zones.
> 
> First, is my understanding correct?  Second, given the high latency that can sometimes
exists between availability zones, is this a problem, and instead we should treat availability
zones as data centers?
> 
> Ideally, we would be able to setup a situation where we could store replicas across availability
zones in case of failure, but establish a high level of read or write consistency within a
single availability zone.
> 
> I appreciate your responses,
> Thanks,
> -Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Robin Verlangen
> Software engineer
> 
> W http://www.robinverlangen.nl
> E robin@us2.nl
> 
> Disclaimer: The information contained in this message and attachments is intended solely
for the attention and use of the named addressee and may be confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are reminded that the information remains the property of the sender.
You must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If you have received
this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and irrevocably delete this message
and any copies.
> 


Mime
View raw message