Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 72182 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2010 13:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2010 13:53:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 63203 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2010 13:53:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 62923 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2010 13:53:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 62907 invoked by uid 99); 14 Dec 2010 13:53:26 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:53:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gdusbabek@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.172] (HELO mail-wy0-f172.google.com) (74.125.82.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:53:19 +0000 Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so506874wyf.31 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Dd1eXWToaticUwXvoagBozcNLyI4Vn0yYUusJqr2WYc=; b=qN6/J6u0fVi0OLizjQ7CHeBZv717KGHON6uHeaR0wVTWCPep5mX4kKVGSSZRNSJpaN gv4fHegqR3zkaDYs+3HzrysJ9sI4I/GpKKfAhWU3WfTK5vrDlq70Z05m13/lOB8Ni5v4 5ZQtFNV/tfIV3fdklOSGv7cl0w+ItqWHJJnVc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=I7PIZpXXc2XXe94wGQR9ztT85RpbBYiQ5T/RqOujLfkRp+kVwvKHNocaeKRpJfd7Vy A0jgvi9Ofrk6clmOHxI9k7P1P53aw3vCyh0wNhveEvou2COaK1579XCHT8FPt52sqsbr quy2tBPs28/R4FqxBTT2TBsw+gJufOHLz6IDs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.48.70 with SMTP id u48mr755030web.25.1292334778578; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.80.99 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: gdusbabek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:52:58 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Running multiple instances on a single server --micrandra ?? From: Gary Dusbabek To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 20:25, Edward Capriolo wrote: > I am quite ready to be stoned for this thread but I have been thinking > about this for a while and I just wanted to bounce these ideas of some > guru's. > > ... > > The upsides ? > 1) Since disk/instance failure only degrades the overall performance > 1/6th (RAID0 you lost the entire node) (RAID5 still takes a hit when > down a disk) > 2) Moves and joins have less work to do > 3) Can scale up a single node by adding a single disk to an existing > system (assuming the ram and cpu is light) > 4) OPP would be "easier" to balance out hot spots (maybe not on this > one in not an OPP) > Sorry for chiming in so late, but another benefit is that it amortizes stop-the-world garbage collection across 6 jvms. > What does everyone thing? Does it ever make sense to run this way? > I think it would be a great way of utilizing CPU and memory, assuming you can come up with the IO bandwidth. Gary.