On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:27 AM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>wrote:
> Couple of ideas: > > * take a look at compression in 1.X > http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-1-0-compression > * is there repetition in the binary data ? Can you save space by > implementing content addressable storage ? > The data is already very highly space optimised. We've come to the conclusion that Cassandra is probably not the right fit the use case this time cheers > > Cheers > > > ----------------- > Aaron Morton > Freelance Developer > @aaronmorton > http://www.thelastpickle.com > > On 20/04/2012, at 12:55 AM, Dave Brosius wrote: > > I think your math is 'relatively' correct. It would seem to me you should > focus on how you can reduce the amount of storage you are using per item, > if at all possible, if that node count is prohibitive. > > On 04/19/2012 07:12 AM, Franc Carter wrote: > > > Hi, > > One of the projects I am working on is going to need to store about > 200TB of data - generally in manageable binary chunks. However, after doing > some rough calculations based on rules of thumb I have seen for how much > storage should be on each node I'm worried. > > 200TB with RF=3 is 600TB = 600,000GB > Which is 1000 nodes at 600GB per node > > I'm hoping I've missed something as 1000 nodes is not viable for us. > > cheers > > -- > *Franc Carter* | Systems architect | Sirca Ltd > <marc.zianideferra...@sirca.org.au> > franc.car...@sirca.org.au | www.sirca.org.au > Tel: +61 2 9236 9118 > Level 9, 80 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000 > PO Box H58, Australia Square, Sydney NSW 1215 > > > > -- *Franc Carter* | Systems architect | Sirca Ltd <marc.zianideferra...@sirca.org.au> franc.car...@sirca.org.au | www.sirca.org.au Tel: +61 2 9236 9118 Level 9, 80 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box H58, Australia Square, Sydney NSW 1215
