hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MauMau" <maumau...@gmail.com>
Subject Why did Facebook prefer to HBase than Cassandra?
Date Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:27:43 GMT
Hello, (especially Mr. Jonathan Gray, Facebook folks),

I'm sorry for mentioning particular people in a public ML.

I saw the following note from Facebook that says Facebook chose HBase, not 
Cassandra, as the storage for the next messaging infrastructure.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/the-underlying-technology-of-messages/454991608919

I'm glad to see this news because I believe that HBase will be used more 
broadly than Cassandra and recommended HBase to my boss and colleagues. 
(However, I understand Cassandra has unique good features.)

I'd like to know why Facebook, the creator of Cassandra, did not choose 
Cassandra. The above note only describes the reason in one sentence:

"We found Cassandra's eventual consistency model to be a difficult pattern 
to reconcile for our new Messages infrastructure."

What kind of operations/features of the new Message didn't Cassandra work 
well for? Counting message, users or something like that because Cassandra 
needs ZooKeeper to count things correctly? Otherwise, eventual consistency 
leads to the undesirable situation where newer messages could appear in the 
inbox without older ones appearing? I'd appreciate if you could share your 
concrete experience/opinions and let us know when HBase fits better or 
Cassandra is difficult to adopt.

Anyone's opinions or guesses will be appreciated.

Best regards,
- Maumau


Mime
View raw message