cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From horschi <hors...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra vs Couchbase benchmarks
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:48:08 GMT
Hi Andy,

things I find odd:

- Replicacount=1 for mongo and couchdb. How is that a realistic benchmark?
I always want at least 2 replicas for my data. Maybe thats just me.
- On the Mongo Config slide they said they disabled journaling. Why do you
disable all safety mechanisms that you would want in a production
environment? Maybe they should have added /dev/null to their benchmark ;-)
- I dont see the replicacount for Cassandra in the slides. Also CL is not
specified. Imho the important stuff is missing in the cassandra
configuration.
- In the goals section it said "more data than RAM". But they only have
12GB data per node, with 15GB of RAM per node!

I am very interested in a recent cassandra-benchmark, but I find this
benchmark very disappointing.

cheers,
Christian


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Andy Cobley
<acobley@computing.dundee.ac.uk>wrote:

> There are some interesting results in the benchmarks below:
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/renatko/couchbase-performance-benchmarking
>
> Without starting a flame war etc, I'm interested if these results should
> be considered "Fair and Balanced" or if the methodology is flawed in some
> way ? (for instance is the use of Amazon EC2 sensible for Cassandra
> deployment) ?
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message