And any problems with small memory boxes? I see some chatter on the cassandra development list about OOM errors. Are they more prevalent on smaller footprint boxes?
Thanks again, -Anthony On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:33:21AM -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > IMO the biggest downside to running on EC2 is that IO is terrible. I > haven't done benchmarks, but anecdotally disk performance in > particular seems like an order of magnitude slower than you'd get on > non-virtual disks. So that is worth investigating before assuming > that the price/performance on EC2 is what you think it is. > > Other than that, Cassandra is designed to emphasize availability so it > should work fine in the situations you describe. Hinted handoff in > particular will get writes to the right nodes quickly when machines > come back online. (However, Cassandra is not yet good at dealing with > machines becoming permanently dead.) > > Of course if _all_ of some keys' replicas are temporarily partitioned > off from you you won't be able to read that data until they are > visible again. > > -Jonathan > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Anthony > Molinaro<antho...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering what the viability of running cassandra on ec2 was. > > I believe that it currently runs on some pretty hefty hardware at > > facebook, so I'm wondering what the minimum hardware config is > > (in other words can I run it on a cluster of 2core 4GB machines)? > > Also, running on Amazon means no multicast, network partitions and > > machines just disappearing. How does cassandra deal with these > > constraints/failures? > > > > Thanks for information, > > > > -Anthony > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Anthony Molinaro <antho...@alumni.caltech.edu> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Molinaro <antho...@alumni.caltech.edu>
