Hi Wilm, What else will this cluster do? Are you planning to run MR against the data here? If this cluster is dedicated to your application and you have enough IO capacity to support all application needs on the cluster, I see no reason to run two clusters.
The reason we recommend against running mixed-workload clusters is those additional tasks compete for the resources hbase needs to meet its online SLAs. -n On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > HBASE-11339 'HBase MOB' may be of interest to you - it is still in > development. > > Cheers > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Wilm Schumacher < > wilm.schumac...@cawoom.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > Am 31.07.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Ted Yu: > > > What's the read / write mix in your workload ? > > I would think around > > > > 1 put to 2-5 reads for the "hdfs files" (estimated) > > > > and > > > > 1 put to hundreds of reads in the hbase table > > > > So in short form: > > > > = for the files > > * number of puts ~ gets > > * "small" number of puts and gets > > * "small" number of files > > * "large" amount of disk space > > > > = for the rows > > * number of puts << gets > > * "large" number of gets (and puts) > > * "large" number of rows (and rows*columns) > > * "small" amount of disk space > > > > Small and large are in '"' because large and small are only understood > > in comparison to the other task. > > > > So, basically, this are two completely different tasks. This is the > > origin of my question. > > > > > Have you looked at HBASE-10070 'HBase read high-availability using > > > timeline-consistent region replicas' (phase 1 has been merged for the > > > upcoming 1.0 release) ? > > No. But I look now ;). > > > > Best wishes and thanks for the reply > > > > Wilm > > >
