incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben <...@instaclustr.com>
Subject Re: Why don't you start off with a "single & small" Cassandra server as you usually do it with MySQL ?
Date Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:30:29 GMT
If you are comfortable with the Cassandra data model, you understand how a QUORUM read and
write work at various replication factors and you think that the growth of your dataset will
somewhat fast as Rob mentioned. Go for it!

Just remember to always benchmark performance and test what happens when your node / nodes
go down so you understand how your app will break when the inevitable happens. The good thing
about VPS/cloud providers is its very cheap and quick to test your plans which will save you
a world of hurt in the future. 

Disclaimer: I work for Instaclustr and we provide managed Cassandra hosting, so the below
advice is a little biased ;)

Your time is your most valuable thing, even when you don't have a ton of cash. Don't spend
weeks trying to get something working on a cheap service provider that will save you $100
a month. Instead suck it up, pay the extra $100 a month for the alternative and move onto
things more important things like customer acquisition.

Good luck

Ben Bromhead
Instaclustr | www.instaclustr.com | @instaclustr 

On 28/08/2013, at 3:36 AM, Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Aklin_81 <asdkl93@gmail.com> wrote:
> But so far what I have seen, it's something very different with Cassandra. People usually
recommend starting out with atleast a 3 node cluster, (on dedicated servers) with lots &
lots of RAM. 4GB or 8GB RAM is what they suggest to start with. So is it that Cassandra requires
more hardware resources in comparison to MySQL,  for a website to deliver similar performance,
serve similar load/ traffic & same amount of data. I understand about higher storage requirements
of Cassandra due to replication but what about other hardware resources ?
> 
> If you have enough data to fit on a single computer, or two computers, and only need
one or two copies of it for redundancy/availability... you probably don't have enough data
to need something like Cassandra. Vertically scaling RDBMS or in-memory k/v stores to significant
size is a tried and true technique. If you may eventually have more data than can fit on a
single very powerful computer, Cassandra or something like it may be indicated. It really
starts to shine once you have N>=3, because then you can have RF>=3, which allows you
to use QUORUM reads and writes for consistency. But because Cassandra is designed for horizontal
scaling (and because it runs in the JVM...) it is natural that it will slightly underperform
from the perspective of vertical scaling.
> 
> =Rob


Mime
View raw message