Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rolo@pythian.com designates
 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALswpfDsZ-+cAoJ3wACbFxpObQ0q1Skm5XvnnR0-1yuFmTpw+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALswpfDsZ-+cAoJ3wACbFxpObQ0q1Skm5XvnnR0-1yuFmTpw+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Carlos Rolo <rolo@pythian.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:57:29 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CALcD3Ps=ZjDGc9CD526r3TM7ew32dBQj-P=uP64G0iqbq7ymyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Best practice: Multiple clusters vs multiple tables in a single
 cluster?
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba2121db96e6f70512be3793

--90e6ba2121db96e6f70512be3793
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
>
>

-- 


--


--90e6ba2121db96e6f70512be3793
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Adding a new keyspace should be perfectly fine. Unless you=
 have completely distinct workloads for the different keyspaces. Even so yo=
u can balanced some stuff at keyspace/table level. But I would go with a ne=
w keyspace not with a new cluster given the small size you say you have.<br=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Regards,<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>Carlos Juzarte Rolo</div><div>Cassandra Consultant</div=
><div>=C2=A0</div><div>Pythian - Love your data</div><div><br></div><div>ro=
lo@pythian | Twitter: cjrolo | Linkedin: <font color=3D"#1155cc"><u><a href=
=3D"http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo" target=3D"_blank">linkedin.co=
m/in/carlosjuzarterolo</a></u></font></div><div>Mobile: +31 6 159 61 814 | =
Tel: +1 613 565 8696 x1649</div><div><a href=3D"http://www.pythian.com/" st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">www.pythian.com</a></div></d=
iv></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Ian Rose <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ianrose@fullstory.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">ianrose@fullstory.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi all -<div><br></div><div>We currently have a sing=
le cassandra cluster that is dedicated to a relatively narrow purpose, with=
 just 2 tables.=C2=A0 Soon we will need cassandra for another, unrelated, s=
ystem, 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 f=
or this new system.</div><div><br></div><div>Does anyone have pros/cons to =
share on this?=C2=A0 It appears from watching talks and such online that th=
e big users (e.g. Netflix, Spotify) tend to favor multiple, single-purpose =
clusters, and thus that was my initial preference.=C2=A0 But we are (for no=
w) no where close to them in traffic so I&#39;m wondering if running an ent=
irely separate cluster would be a premature optimization which wouldn&#39;t=
 pay for the (nontrivial) overhead in configuration management and ops.=C2=
=A0 While we are still small it might be much smarter to reuse our existing=
 clusters so that I can get it done faster...</div><div><br></div><div>Than=
ks!</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div>- Ian</div><di=
v><br></div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

<br>
<p>--</p><p><br><br></p><p></p>
--90e6ba2121db96e6f70512be3793--