I've seen a lot of deployments, and I think you captured the scenarios and reasoning quite well. You can apply other nuances and details to #2 (e.g. segment based on SLA or topology), but I agree with all of your reasoning.
-Tupshin -Global Field Strategy -Datastax On Jul 8, 2014 10:54 AM, "Jeremy Jongsma" <jer...@barchart.com> wrote: > Do you prefer purpose-specific Cassandra clusters that support a single > application's data set, or a single Cassandra cluster that contains column > families for many applications? I realize there is no ideal answer for > every situation, but what have your experiences been in this area for > cluster planning? > > My reason for asking is that we have one application with high data volume > (multiple TB, thousands of writes/sec) that caused us to adopt Cassandra in > the first place. Now we have the tools and cluster management > infrastructure built up to the point where it is not a major investment to > store smaller sets of data for other applications in C* also, and I am > debating whether to: > > 1) Store everything in one large cluster (no isolation, low cost) > 2) Use one cluster for the high-volume data, and one for everything else > (good isolation, medium cost) > 3) Give every major service its own cluster, even if they have small > amounts of data (best isolation, highest cost) > > I suspect #2 is the way to go as far as balancing hosting costs and > application performance isolation. Any pros or cons am I missing? > > -j >
