does an elastic network interface really use a different physical network 
interface? or is it just to give the ability for multiple ip addresses?



On June 19, 2014 at 3:56:34 PM, Nate McCall (n...@thelastpickle.com) wrote:

If someone really wanted to try this it, I recommend adding an Elastic Network 
Interface or two for gossip and client/API traffic. This lets EBS and 
management traffic have the pre-configured network. 


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith 
<belliottsm...@datastax.com> wrote:
I would say this is worth benchmarking before jumping to conclusions. The 
network being a bottleneck (or latency causing) for EBS is, to my knowledge, 
supposition, and instances can be started with direct connections to EBS if 
this is a concern. The blog post below shows that even without SSDs the 
EBS-optimised provisioned-IOPS instances show pretty consistent latency 
numbers, although those latencies are higher than you would typically expect 
from locally attached storage.

http://blog.parse.com/2012/09/17/parse-databases-upgraded-to-amazon-provisioned-iops/

Note, I'm not endorsing the use of EBS. Cassandra is designed to scale up with 
number of nodes, not with depth of nodes (as Ben mentions, saturating a single 
node's data capacity is pretty easy these days. CPUs rapidly become the 
bottleneck as you try to go deep). However the argument that EBS cannot provide 
consistent performance seems overly pessimistic, and should probably be 
empirically determined for your use case.


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, looks fair enough.

Thanks guys. I would be great to be able to add disks when amount of data 
raises and add nodes when throughput increases... :)


2014-06-19 5:27 GMT+02:00 Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com>:

http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cassandra/1.2/cassandra/architecture/architecturePlanningEC2_c.html

From the link:

EBS volumes are not recommended for Cassandra data volumes for the following 
reasons:

• EBS volumes contend directly for network throughput with standard packets. 
This means that EBS throughput is likely to fail if you saturate a network link.
• EBS volumes have unreliable performance. I/O performance can be exceptionally 
slow, causing the system to back load reads and writes until the entire cluster 
becomes unresponsive.
• Adding capacity by increasing the number of EBS volumes per host does not 
scale. You can easily surpass the ability of the system to keep effective 
buffer caches and concurrently serve requests for all of the data it is 
responsible for managing.

Still applies, especially the network contention and latency issues. 

Ben Bromhead
Instaclustr | www.instaclustr.com | @instaclustr | +61 415 936 359

On 18 Jun 2014, at 7:18 pm, Daniel Chia <danc...@coursera.org> wrote:

While they guarantee IOPS, they don't really make any guarantees about latency. 
Since EBS goes over the network, there's so many things in the path of getting 
at your data, I would be concerned with random latency spikes, unless proven 
otherwise.

Thanks,
Daniel


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com> wrote:
In this document it is said :

Provisioned IOPS (SSD) - Volumes of this type are ideal for the most demanding 
I/O intensive, transactional workloads and large relational or NoSQL databases. 
This volume type provides the most consistent performance and allows you to 
provision the exact level of performance you need with the most predictable and 
consistent performance. With this type of volume you provision exactly what you 
need, and pay for what you provision. Once again, you can achieve up to 48,000 
IOPS by connecting multiple volumes together using RAID.


2014-06-18 10:57 GMT+02:00 Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com>:

Hi,

I just saw this : 
http://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/aws/new-ssd-backed-elastic-block-storage/

Since the problem with EBS was the network, there is no chance that this 
hardware architecture might be useful alongside Cassandra, right ?

Alain








--
-----------------
Nate McCall
Austin, TX
@zznate

Co-Founder & Sr. Technical Consultant
Apache Cassandra Consulting
http://www.thelastpickle.com

Reply via email to