So if one is forced to use a SAN, how should you set up Cassandra is
the interesting question - to me! Here are some thoughts:-
1. Ensure that each node gets dedicated - not shared - LUNs
2. Ensure that these LUNs do share spindles, or nodes will seize to be
isolatable (this will be tough
Of course with a SAN you'd want RF=1 since it's replicating
internally.
Isn't this the same case for raid-5 as well?
And we want RF=2 if we need to keep reading while doing rolling
restarts?
~mck
--
“Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of
imagination.” - Oscar Wilde
|
[OT] They're quoting roughly the same price for both (claiming
that the
extra cost goes into having for each node a separate disk
cabinet to run
local raid-5).
You might not need raid-5 for local attached storage.
Yes we did ask. But raid-5 is the
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Mick Semb Wever m...@apache.org wrote:
Of course with a SAN you'd want RF=1 since it's replicating
internally.
Isn't this the same case for raid-5 as well?
No, because the replication is (mainly) to protect you from machine
failures; if the SAN is a SPOF then
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Mick Semb Wever m...@apache.org wrote:
Of course with a SAN you'd want RF=1 since it's replicating
internally.
Isn't this the same case for raid-5 as well?
No, because the replication
Sort of - do not agree!!
This is the Shared nothing V/s Shared Disk debate. There are many mainstream
RDBMS products that pretend to do horizontal scalability with Shared Disks.
They have the kinds of problems that Cassandra is specifically architected
to avoid!
The original question here has 2
Does anyone have any experiences with Cassandra on iSCSI?
I'm currently testing a (soon-to-be) production server using both local
raid-5 and iSCSI disks. Our hosting provider is pushing us hard towards
the iSCSI disks because it is easier for them to run (and to meet our
needs for increasing disk
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mick Semb Wever m...@apache.org wrote:
To go with raid-5 disks our hosting provider requires proof that iSCSI
won't work. I tried various things (eg `nodetool cleanup` on 12Gb load
giving 5k IOPS) but iSCSI seems to keep up to the performance of the
local
It should work fine; the main reason to go with local storage is the
huge cost advantage.
[OT] They're quoting roughly the same price for both (claiming that the
extra cost goes into having for each node a separate disk cabinet to run
local raid-5).
*I just committed a README for
