Hello Eric,
You make a good point about resiliency being applied at a higher level in
the stack.
Thanks
Jabbar Azam
On 8 November 2014 14:24, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > They do not use Raid10 on the node, they don't use dual power as well,
> because it's not cheap in cluster of many nodes
>
> I
I have used Supermicro servers in my previous work and they give excellent
quality for their money. They have been considered a bit "cheap" quality
wise in the past, but the current models are pretty good. They offer all
standard stuff like remote control cards (IPMI), dual power supplies (if
you w
With regards to money I think it's always a good idea to find a cost
effective solution. The problem is different people have different
interpretations of what cost effectiveness means. I'm referring to my
organisation. ;). I'm sure it happens in other organisations. Biases,
politics, experience, h
> They do not use Raid10 on the node, they don't use dual power as well,
because it's not cheap in cluster of many nodes
I think the point here is that money spent on traditional failure avoidance
models is better spent in a Cassandra cluster by instead having more nodes
of less expensive hardware
Let me speak from my heart. I maintenance 200+TB Cassandra cluster. The problem
is money. If your IT people have a $$$ they can deploy Cassandra on super
robust hardware with triple power supply of course. But why then you need
Cassandra? Only for scalability?
The idea of high available cluster
