Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Rock, Paul" <paul.rock@teamaol.com>
To: "<user@cassandra.apache.org>" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Possible application
Thread-Topic: Possible application
Thread-Index: AQHLyTNd6hoZYVR7qkm27zDqGo4/0JP7TZ0A
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:15:23 +0000
Message-ID: <3660AF51-6AC7-461E-B6E6-B8F944C5667C@teamaol.com>
References: <AANLkTi=7gOE3w626AEUGcz8Rm4cH=JEQOE9EM41-t7Q9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=7gOE3w626AEUGcz8Rm4cH=JEQOE9EM41-t7Q9@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <EDEE4A4759296C4190B4E9C402F7751E@teamaol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Well, you can make Cassandra work on a single box (or multiple instances on=
 a single box if need be). My experimental/dev cluster that my team plays w=
ith to try things out is 6 nodes running on 6 rather small cloud VM's and i=
t works fine. So I'd say yes, it work in the merely big scale.

On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> Hello there,
>=20
> I'm trying to sort out whether Cassandra is a good pick as the data
> store for a problem I've got.
>=20
> The shape of the thing is a large number of hash tables. On a merely
> pretty big scale, it can all run on one pretty big machine. On a
> gigantic scale, which is an eventual goal, it will need to spread out
> over multiple computers.
>=20
> My concern is, in essence, whether Cassandra will scale down to
> 'merely big', or whether I need to code to something else for that
> purpose and then be able to switch. Imagine, oh, 49 tables, each
> storing a million hashes.
>=20
> Our current prototype is using redis.