It sounds like you're trying to avoid the latency of waiting for a write confirmation to a remote data center?

App ==> DC1 ==high-latency==> DC2

If you need the write to be confirmed before you consider the write successful in your application (definitely recommended unless you're ok with losing data and the app having no idea), you're not going to solve the fundamental physics problem of having to wait for a round-trip between _something_ and DC2.  DC1 can't acknowledge the write until it's in memtables and commitlog of a node that owns that data, so under the hoods it's doing basically the same thing your app would have to do.  In fact, putting DC1 in the middle just introduces a (possibly trivial but definitely not zero) amount of additional latency over:

App ==high-latency==> DC2

The only exception would be if you had an expectation that latency between DC1 and DC2 would be lower than latency between App and DC2, which I admit is not impossible.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:49 PM Dorian Hoxha <> wrote:
Thanks Edward. Looks like it's not possible what I really wanted (to use some kind of a quorum write ex).

Note that the queue is ordered, but I need just so they eventually happen, but with more consistency than ANY (2 nodes or more).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Edward Capriolo <> wrote:
You can do something like this, though your use of terminology like "queue" really do not apply.

You can setup your keyspace with replication in only one data center.
CREATE KEYSPACE NTSkeyspace WITH REPLICATION = { 'class' : 'NetworkTopologyStrategy', 'dc2' : 3 };
This will make the NTSkeyspace like only in one data center. You can always write to any Cassandra node, since they will transparently proxy the writes to the proper place. You can configure your client to ONLY bind to specific hosts or data centers/hosts DC1. 

You can use a write consistency level like ANY. IF you use a consistency level like ONE. It will cause the the write to block anyway waiting for completion on the other datacenter.

Since you mentioned the words "like a queue" I would suggest an alternative is to writing the data do a distributed commit log like kafka. At that point you can decouple the write systems either through producer consumer or through a tool like Kafka's mirror maker.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Dorian Hoxha <> wrote:
I have dc1 and dc2.
I want to keep a keyspace only on dc2.
But I only have my app on dc1.
And I want to write to dc1 (lower latency) which will not keep data locally but just push it to dc2.
While reading will only work for dc2.
Since my app is mostly write, my app ~will be faster while not having to deploy to the app to dc2 or write directly to dc2 with higher latency.

dc1 would act like a queue or something and just push data + delete locally.

Does this make sense ?

Thank You