incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Morton <dan...@djmorton.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra on a single (under-powered) instance?
Date Thu, 30 May 2013 17:07:34 GMT
Hi Tyler... Thank you very much for the response.  It is nice to know that
there is some possibility this might work. :)


Regards,

Daniel Morton


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Tyler Hobbs <tyler@datastax.com> wrote:

> You can get away with a 1 to 2GB heap if you don't put too much pressure
> on it.  I commonly run stress tests against a 400M heap node while
> developing and I almost never see OutOfMemory errors, but I'm not keeping a
> close eye on latency and throughput, which will be impacted when the JVM GC
> is running nonstop.
>
> Cassandra doesn't tend to become CPU bound, so an i3 will probably work
> fine.
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Daniel Morton <daniel@djmorton.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello All.
>>
>> I am new to Cassandra and I am evaluating it for a project I am working
>> on.
>>
>> This project has several distribution models, ranging from a cloud
>> distribution where we would be collecting hundreds of millions of rows per
>> day to a single box distribution where we could be collecting as few as 5
>> to 10 million rows per day.
>>
>> Based on the experimentation and testing I have done so far, I believe
>> that Cassandra would be an excellent fit for our large scale cloud
>> distribution, but from a maintenance/support point of view, we would like
>> to keep our storage engine consistent across all distributions.
>>
>> For our single box distribution, it could be running on a box as small as
>> an i3 processor with 4 GB of RAM and about 180 GB of disk base available
>> for use... A rough estimate would be that our storage engine could be
>> allowed to consume about half of the processor and RAM resources.
>>
>> I know that running Cassandra on a single instance throws away the
>> majority of the benefits of using a distribution storage solution
>> (distributed writes and reads, fault tolerance, etc.), but it might be
>> worth the trade off if we don't have to support two completely different
>> storage solutions, even if they were hidden behind an abstraction layer
>> from the application's point of view.
>>
>> My question is, are we completely out-to-lunch thinking that we might be
>> able to run Cassandra in a reasonable way on such an under-powered box?  I
>> believe I recall reading in the Datastax documentation that the minimum
>> recommended system requirements are 8 to 12 cores and 8 GB of RAM, which is
>> a far cry from the lowest-end machine I'm considering.
>>
>> Any info or help anyone could provide would be most appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel Morton
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Tyler Hobbs
> DataStax <http://datastax.com/>
>

Mime
View raw message