On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Bill de hÓra b...@dehora.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 21:25 -0500, Edward Capriolo wrote:
The idea behind micrandra is for a 6 disk system run 6 instances of
Cassandra, one per disk. Use the RackAwareSnitch to make sure no
replicas live on the same node.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Bill de hÓra b...@dehora.net wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 21:25 -0500, Edward Capriolo wrote:
The idea behind micrandra is for a 6 disk system run 6 instances of
Cassandra, one
Overall, I don't think this is a crazy idea, though I think I'd prefer
cassandra to manage this setup.
The problem you will run into is that because the storage port is
assumed to be the same across the cluster you'll only be able to do
this if you can assign multiple IPs to each server (one for
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 21:25 -0500, Edward Capriolo wrote:
The idea behind micrandra is for a 6 disk system run 6 instances of
Cassandra, one per disk. Use the RackAwareSnitch to make sure no
replicas live on the same node.
The downsides
1) we would have to manage 6x the instances of
Interesting idea, .
If it is like dividing the entire load on the system by 6, so if the
effective load is still the same and used SSD's for commit volume we could
get away with 1 commitlog SSD. Even if these 6 instances can handle 80% of
the load (compared to 1 on this machine), that might be
I am quite ready to be stoned for this thread but I have been thinking
about this for a while and I just wanted to bounce these ideas of some
guru's.
Cassandra does allow multiple data directories, but as far as I can
tell no one runs in this configuration. This is something that is very
The major downside is you're going to want to let each instance have
its own dedicated commitlog spindle too, unless you just don't have
many updates.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.com wrote:
I am quite ready to be stoned for this thread but I have been
