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 7B84110C26 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 80283 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2013 17:24:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 80239 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2013 17:24:54 -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 80231 invoked by uid 99); 7 Aug 2013 17:24:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:24:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paulingalls@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.182] (HELO mail-pd0-f182.google.com) (209.85.192.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:24:48 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so1627292pdi.41 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:24:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=pn+8pxSJc9tQNdTHQZNXiauoWbGU8C87rjMil42DT+U=; b=js7pl5Fs72SjBptbBlY+/s+4BmTMa73P0C6WMttBnhJw3Z7Jdp4UE67IG+r4aX24vN I113gSTduRQqqRActCNs39fjTCqG1AbFWW3Klf5L4SagVjFrZzmPJ5H1fPKrYdBw9Q/d FpKJksVAYJa/JwsZgqADXpLMrB6295JCO9Dn5cagwpr1X0V3/I5tMJHG3lPk1b2yBjUx qtErO/Y5ijxNgX3EtEH3SlZ+munwJEE9eGl6aDyDpkSwiwl/WYpCTEcqScGh9u1vRlWq zO5UfL1r/gtB2bQR47pBTYR3i2PKCWVbJaddFTnodJ0172G9PR6jHseJLzq4SeZ/Kxnu Eu4w== X-Received: by 10.68.2.69 with SMTP id 5mr1709287pbs.124.1375896268060; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.3] (184-78-184-52.war.clearwire-wmx.net. [184.78.184.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id eq5sm9355633pbc.15.2013.08.07.10.24.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Ingalls Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: lots of small nodes vs fewer big nodes Message-Id: <6E7CBD0D-6DD3-491F-9FE4-3E9256B03AC7@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:24:24 -0700 To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Quick question about systems architecture. Would it be better to run 5 nodes with 7GB RAM and 4CPU's or 10 nodes = with 3.5GB RAM and 2CPUS? I'm currently running the former, but am considering the latter. My = goal would be to improve overall performance by spreading the IO across = more disks. My currently cluster has low CPU utilization but does spend = a good amount of time in iowait. Would moving to more smaller nodes = help with that? Or would I run into trouble with the smaller ram and = cpu? Thanks! Paul=