hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Why did Facebook prefer to HBase than Cassandra?
Date Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:08:40 GMT
This isn't the right forum for that kind of discussion.

I recommend going on Quora which already has a few good threads on the
subject, answered by FB folks, namely:






2010/11/19 MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com>:
> 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

View raw message