Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jbellis@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=jz8+GXXSx8hQKfjpdKa5OV0lq0sX2ryVcaHj0D1BcDNLFvEFg4uXMQ/SuiLigu4clE
         UrbvOFp8IHAfEO2MYro5OFJb0AWnjUc/wsJ26+BCuR5hHQPmTIhJKu08Yuu4d5vxtT9c
         UdVDKAZ9PIotxPENI+G9gajUdsyYn8Il+G010=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4BFED789.4050501@trackstudio.com>
References: <4BFED789.4050501@trackstudio.com>
From: Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 21:11:10 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTik84YTXWNOUEvdI8wxJAobbKpQJzOjybr4bCcF_@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cassandra CF sharding
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2) is correct, but for 1) I'm not sure what manageability improvements
you anticipate from dealing with multiple entities instead of one.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of for 3) but routing is done by key
only.

2010/5/27 Maxim Kramarenko <maximkr@trackstudio.com>:
> Hello!
>
> We have mail archive with one large CF for mail body. In our case, it's easy
> to shard data to 5-10 CF by customer id. We like to do this because:
>
> 1) We get more manageable instances, because we have many small CF instead
> of one multi-TB CF on each node.
>
> 2) Better disk space usage (need to reserve 50% of the largest shard for
> compaction only)
>
> 3) Can manage node load not by token only, but also by defining shards
> available per node.
>
> Is my assumptions correct ? Any negative side effects ?
>


-- 
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support
http://riptano.com