hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arun Allamsetty <arun.allamse...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using HBase in standalone mode in production
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:09:34 GMT
I understand. But for example, my use case is where even if I don't have a
lot of data, what if I would rather store serialized objects. For this
traditional RDBMS are not suitable. If I can forego the fail safe
capabilities, then what is a good choice (if not HBase).

Also, on a different note, if I have a HBase installation in pseudo
distributed mode, then can I convert it into a distributed setup by adding
more machines without any loss in data?

Thanks,
Arun
On Jul 7, 2014 6:02 PM, "Dima Spivak" <dspivak@cloudera.com> wrote:

> In general, production systems run in distributed mode because they
> leverage HBase's scalability and reliability; HBase really only shows its
> worth when it's charged with managing terabytes of data on a fault-tolerant
> file system like HDFS. You lose both of these when you run in standalone
> mode, so I'd be a bit worried about using such a setup for any production
> use.
>
> -Dima
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Arun Allamsetty <arun.allamsetty@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > I have. So the book says there are two types of distributed modes. One is
> > pseudo distributed, which is used when we want to test HBase's
> distributed
> > capabilities using a single machine. As far as I understood, this is just
> > to verify the use cases and the requirements. Then we have the fully
> > distributed mode in which HBase can be installed over multiple machines.
> >
> > I understand both the scenarios. But what if my application is not large
> > enough to leverage the distributed mode and the pseudo distributed mode
> is
> > pretty much for a PoC. Since the pseudo distributed mode won't be able to
> > provide any fault tolerance, can one use the standalone mode in
> production.
> >
> > I hope my question is clear even if it does not make much sense.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Arun
> > On Jul 7, 2014 5:17 PM, "Ted Yu" <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Have you read http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#standalone_dist ?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Arun Allamsetty <
> > arun.allamsetty@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > So this question might be stupid, retarded even, but it has been
> > bugging
> > > me
> > > > for a while and I cannot think of a better place to ask this. I am
> > really
> > > > impressed with the way HBase works (as a key-value store). Since it
> > > stores
> > > > everything as a byte array, I find it really convenient to store
> > > serialized
> > > > objects. Also, I understand that HBase is supposed to be used when
> you
> > > have
> > > > too much data to be handled by a single machine, so we can scale our
> > > > application by running it in distributed mode.
> > > >
> > > > But what if I want to use it because its HashMap kind of capabilities
> > > with
> > > > an added feature to track versions. Is it recommended that I use it
> > for a
> > > > small application (in standalone mode) with maybe 100K users and
> > storage
> > > > needs which probably won't exceed 100G.
> > > >
> > > > I know it is never recommended to be used as a transactional database
> > (I
> > > > have read that in a million places) but I would like to know more
> about
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Arun
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message