Cassandra is not a big table clone. Bigtable specifies 2 things: - a data model with column families, etc - a distribution model, a distributed architecture, etc
Only HBase provides both these things. Cassandra provides elements of (a) and uses the dynamo model to do distribution. I believe in HBase because I think it's distribution model is simpler, more robust and reliable than the dynamo model. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Fuad Efendi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Doug, sorry for off-topic, it was extremely hot day; and I finally found >>that it is cheaper to get single dedicated cc1.4xlarge (EC2) for >>$1.60/hour than to rely on advocated (Whirr and Friends) c1.xlarge >>($1.68/hour); unbelievable (hot!) 10 minutes for garbage collection of 1 >>Gb heap only, 1000 (small!!!) transactions PER MINUTE only. It can be >>explained by "virtual" sharing of the same cc1.4xlarge with at least two >>of other users (3 x $1.68 = $2.04) . Especially "swap", "cache" is used >>instead of file, and (of course) it is slower. > No any problem with Hadoop thoughŠ > > BTW, I need to compare with Cassandra, another Big Table clone. > > (P.S. I used dedicated servers before, and never had problems with Hbase; > except EC2) > > -Fuad > > >
