Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 btv1==768987c87e2==mkjellman@barracuda.com designates 64.235.145.81 as
 permitted sender)
From: Michael Kjellman <mkjellman@barracuda.com>
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:33:27 -0800
Subject: Re: 1.2.2 as primary storage?
Thread-Topic: 1.2.2 as primary storage?
Thread-Index: Ac4TsINvskA4mQiHQ0Ccus6T27bexQ==
Message-ID: <CD5134A9.12CCB%mkjellman@barracuda.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2vc9gas26.fsf@sokitomi.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: softfail (barracuda.com: domain of transitioning
 mkjellman@barracuda.com does not designate ::1 as permitted sender)

How big will each mutation be roughly? 1MB, 5MB, 16MB?

On 2/25/13 3:32 PM, "Chris Dean" <ctdean@sokitomi.com> wrote:

>I've been away from Cassandra for a while and wondered what the
>consensus is on using 1.2.2 as a primary data store?
>
>Our app has a typical OLTP workload but we have high availability
>requirements.  The data set is just under 1TB and I don't see us growing
>to more that a small Cassandra cluster.
>
>I have run 0.7.0 on a 3 node cluster in production and that was fine,
>but it was a different sort of application.
>
>Thanks!
>
>(FWIW, our second choice would be to run PG and shard at the app level.)
>
>Cheers,
>Chris Dean


Copy, by Barracuda, helps you store, protect, and share all your amazing=0D
things. Start today: www.copy.com.