You have to give up a lot of optimizations when you say "we're going to plug into any generic backend." That is not something we are interested in doing.
-Jonathan On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:15 AM, testn<[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be nice if we can plug in different backstore to it. Voldemort seems > to be quite extensible that way and I think it's quite suitable for an > application that has high read/write ratio. > > > Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> >> I suppose you could do that either directly from your client or with a >> proxy, but if your rdbms can handle the write volume then just use >> replication to handle the reads. Typically people move to Cassandra >> and other distributed dbs when they need to scale more writes than you >> can do on an rdbms. >> >> If possible, I think a better approach to "I don't trust this new >> technology" is to keep a separate (distributed) log of your writes >> somehow such that if you absolutely had to you could rebuild your >> cassandra data from. >> >> Risk of corruption with Cassandra is much lower than most systems >> since SSTables are immutable once written. >> >> -Jonathan >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:53 PM, testn<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Is it possible to persist the data into the database and using cassandra >>> as a >>> cache writethrough? I wonder this because many organizations don't really >>> quite believe in the reliability of disk storage (i.e. can be corrupted). >>> If >>> Cassandra can load data from Database on the fly while persisting it into >>> the database when writing, it would be perfect.. >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n2.nabble.com/Database-backstore-tp3065200p3065200.html >>> Sent from the [email protected] mailing list archive at >>> Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Database-backstore-tp3065200p3135134.html > Sent from the [email protected] mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >
