cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rolo <r...@pythian.com>
Subject Re: Best practice: Multiple clusters vs multiple tables in a single cluster?
Date Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:57:29 GMT
Adding a new keyspace should be perfectly fine. Unless you have completely
distinct workloads for the different keyspaces. Even so you can balanced
some stuff at keyspace/table level. But I would go with a new keyspace not
with a new cluster given the small size you say you have.

Regards,

Carlos Juzarte Rolo
Cassandra Consultant

Pythian - Love your data

rolo@pythian | Twitter: cjrolo | Linkedin: *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo
<http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>*
Mobile: +31 6 159 61 814 | Tel: +1 613 565 8696 x1649
www.pythian.com

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Ian Rose <ianrose@fullstory.com> wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> We currently have a single cassandra cluster that is dedicated to a
> relatively narrow purpose, with just 2 tables.  Soon we will need cassandra
> for another, unrelated, system, and my debate is whether to just add the
> new tables to our existing cassandra cluster or whether to spin up an
> entirely new, separate cluster for this new system.
>
> Does anyone have pros/cons to share on this?  It appears from watching
> talks and such online that the big users (e.g. Netflix, Spotify) tend to
> favor multiple, single-purpose clusters, and thus that was my initial
> preference.  But we are (for now) no where close to them in traffic so I'm
> wondering if running an entirely separate cluster would be a premature
> optimization which wouldn't pay for the (nontrivial) overhead in
> configuration management and ops.  While we are still small it might be
> much smarter to reuse our existing clusters so that I can get it done
> faster...
>
> Thanks!
> - Ian
>
>

-- 


--




Mime
View raw message