cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de>
Subject Re: Cassandra use cases/Strengths/Weakness
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:32:08 GMT
I agree, that traditional RDBMS have good and established admin/mgmt tools/practices. 

But C* strength is distributed, failure tolerant operation. And this is exactly where nearly
all traditional RDBMS just fail. I've seen both Oracle and IBM "clusters"/"HA" "solutions"
(and a lot of other software) fail regularly - even just running at moderate load.

--
Sent from my iPhone 

> Am 09.07.2014 um 02:51 schrieb Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com>:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  c. operational simplicity due to master-less architecture. This feature is, although
quite transparent for developers, is a key selling point. Having suffered when installing
manually a Hadoop cluster, I happen to love the deployment simplicity of C*, only one process
per node, no moving parts.
> 
> Asserting that Cassandra, as a fully functioning production system, is currently easier
to operate than RDBMS is just false. It is still false even if we ignore the availability
of experienced RDBMS operators and decades of RDBMS operational best practice.
> 
> The quality of software engineering practice in RDBMS land also most assuredly results
in a more easily operable system in many, many use cases. Yes, Cassandra is more tolerant
to individual node failures. This turns out to not matter as much in terms of "operability"
as non-operators appear to think it does. Very trivial operational activities ("create a new
columnfamily" or "replace a failed node") are subject to failure mode edge cases which often
are not resolvable without brute force methods.
> 
> I am unable to get my head around the oft-heard marketing assertion that a data-store
in which such common activities are not bulletproof is capable of being than better to operate
than the RDBMS status quo. The production operators I know also do not agree that Cassandra
is simple to operate.
> 
> All the above aside, I continue to maintain that Cassandra is the best at being the type
of thing that it is. If you have a need to horizontally scale a use case that is well suited
for its strength and poorly suited for RDBMS, you should use it. Far fewer people actually
have this sort of case than think they do.
> 
> =Rob

Mime
View raw message