;t have to guess or reconstruct good settings from 10-100 emails on the
> list? If I understood the issues I would be happy to write it up, but I am
> afraid I don't.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> Sent
00 emails on the
> list? If I understood the issues I would be happy to write it up, but I am
> afraid I don't.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:51 PM
> To: user@hba
ess or reconstruct good settings from 10-100 emails on the
> list? If I understood the issues I would be happy to write it up, but I am
> afraid I don't.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> Sent:
, but I am afraid I
don't.
Thanks,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:51 PM
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: Big machines or (relatively) small machines?
I would take it one notch smaller, 32GB ram per node i
> - Do you plan to serve data out of HBase or will you just use it for
> MapReduce? Or will it be a mix (not recommended)?
I am also curious what would be the recommended deployment when you
have this need (e.g. building multiple Lucene indexes which hold only
the Row ID, so building is MR intens
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
> It really depends on your usage pattern, but there's a balance wrt
> cost VS hardware you must achieve. At StumbleUpon we run with 2xi7,
> 24GB, 4x 1TB and it works like a charm. The only thing I would change
> is maybe more disks/node b
I would take it one notch smaller, 32GB ram per node is probably more
than enough...
It would be hard to get full utilization of 128GB ram, and maybe even
64GB. With 32GB you might even be able to get 2GB dimms (much
cheaper).
-ryan
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Sean Bigdatafun
wrote:
> On
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> If those are your actual specs, I would definitely go with 16 of the
> smaller
> ones. 128G heaps are not going to work well in a JVM, you're better off
> running with more nodes with a more common configuration.
>
I am not using one JVM on a
If those are your actual specs, I would definitely go with 16 of the smaller
ones. 128G heaps are not going to work well in a JVM, you're better off
running with more nodes with a more common configuration.
-Todd
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
> It really depends on yo
It really depends on your usage pattern, but there's a balance wrt
cost VS hardware you must achieve. At StumbleUpon we run with 2xi7,
24GB, 4x 1TB and it works like a charm. The only thing I would change
is maybe more disks/node but that's pretty much it. Some relevant
questions:
- Do you have a
I am thinking of the following problem lately. I started thinking of this
problem in the following context.
I have a predefined budget and I can either
-- A) purchase 8 more powerful servers (4cpu x 4 cores/cpu + 128GB mem +
16 x 1TB disk) or
-- B) purchase 16 less powerful servers(2cpu x 4 c
11 matches
Mail list logo
