I second Peters point, big servers are not always the best.
My experience (using spinning disks) is that 200 to 300 GB of live data load
per node (including replicated data) is a sweet spot. Above this the time taken
for compaction, repair, off node backups, node moves etc starts to be a pain.
Good point. One thing I'm wondering about cassandra is what happens when
there is a massive failure. For example, if 1/3 of the nodes go down or
become unreachable. This could happen in EC2 if an AZ has a failure, or
in a datacenter if a whole rack or UPS goes dark. I'm not so concerned
about the t
> Thanks for the responses! We'll definitely go for powerful servers to
> reduce the total count. Beyond a dozen servers there really doesn't seem
> to be much point in trying to increase count anymore for
Just be aware that if "big" servers imply *lots* of data (especially
in relation to memory s
We're embarking on a project where we estimate we will need on
> the order
> of 100 cassandra nodes. The data set is perfectly
> partitionable, meaning
> we have no queries that need to have access to all the data at
> once. We
>
odes. The data set is perfectly partitionable, meaning
>> we have no queries that need to have access to all the data at once. We
>> expect to run with RF=2 or =3. Is there some notion of ideal cluster
>> size? Or perhaps asked differently, would it be easier to run one large
>
Is there some notion of ideal cluster
size? Or perhaps asked differently, would it be easier to run one large
cluster or would it be easier to run a bunch of, say, 16 node clusters?
Everything we've done to date has fit into 4-5 node clusters.
> We're embarking on a project where we estimate we will need on the order
> of 100 cassandra nodes. The data set is perfectly partitionable, meaning
> we have no queries that need to have access to all the data at once. We
> expect to run with RF=2 or =3. Is there some notion
We're embarking on a project where we estimate we will need on the order
of 100 cassandra nodes. The data set is perfectly partitionable, meaning
we have no queries that need to have access to all the data at once. We
expect to run with RF=2 or =3. Is there some notion of ideal cluster
siz
