Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00E337E7-6418-4281-A84D-8FF9EB03DA21@venarc.com>
References: <CCBD4066.18D0D%mkjellman@barracuda.com>
	<7D4DD5A8-3AF8-4EA6-A186-0BD921C540C1@venarc.com>
	<CACHzRHa87apkP6edLcds6VGCotf46YAqcd4pm1a3qJateJ02VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<00E337E7-6418-4281-A84D-8FF9EB03DA21@venarc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:48:47 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CACHzRHZ3qAp3cT=-LU9R0hwu3xNumQ7cOafb0mEo7pMthp15Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Single Node Cassandra Installation
From: Rob Coli <rcoli@palominodb.com>
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Drew Kutcharian <drew@venarc.com> wrote:
> Thanks Rob, this makes sense. We only have one rack at this point, so I t=
hink it'd be better to start with PropertyFileSnitch to make Cassandra thin=
k that these nodes each are in a different rack without having to put them =
on different subnets. And I will have more flexibility (at the cost of keep=
ing the property file in sync) when it comes to growth.

Many people run successfully with PFS, and as you say it provides
flexibility if you get a second rack. The overhead versus a
non-rack-aware snitch is not significant.

However if you are careful you should be able to switch to PFS or
another rack aware snitch with no problems when you actually need
it... :)

=3DRob

--=20
=3DRobert Coli
AIM&GTALK - rcoli@palominodb.com
YAHOO - rcoli.palominob
SKYPE - rcoli_palominodb