Some comments inline... On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Shook <jsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SSDs are not reliable after a (relatively-low compared to spinning > disk) number of writes. > They may significantly boost performance if used on the "journal" > storage, but will suffer short lifetimes for highly-random write > patterns. > I agree with this statement in general, however, my understanding is that Cassandra NEVER does random writes. It only ever does large sequential writes. Cassandra could potentially be the perfect use case for MLC (multi-level-cell) SSD's. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Tyler Hobbs <ty...@riptano.com> wrote: > > You do *not* want to waste an SSD on the commitlog drive, as even a slow > HDD can write sequentially very quickly. For the data drive, they might > make sense. > Totally agreed, we do a few thousand writes per second on a single 7200rpm SATA disk. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Alaa Zubaidi <alaa.zuba...@pdf.com> wrote: > around 1800 col/sec per node, 3kb columns, reading is the same. > Data will be deleted after 4 hours. Hmm, only keeping the data for 4 hours could present some unique challenges with Cassandra since it does not actually delete the data (it only tombstones the data). There are several factors that play into when exactly the data actually goes away -Eric
