Agreed if you are using SSD you likely will not need much as much RAM.
I said You could always do better with more RAM not You should
definitely get more RAM :)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Maxim Potekhin potek...@bnl.gov wrote:
Thank you Edward.
As can be expected, my data volume is a multiple of whatever RAM I can
realistically buy, and in fact much bigger. In my very limited experience,
the money might be well spent on multicore CPUs because it makes routine
operations like compact/repair (which always include writes) so much faster,
hence reducing
the periods of high occupancy. I'm trying to scope out how much SSD I will
need because
it appears to be an economical solution to problems I had previously had.
Regards,
Maxim
On 3/13/2012 10:40 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
I am 1.0.7. I would suggest that. The memtable and JAMM stuff is very
stable. I would not setup 0.8.X because with 1.1 coming soon 0.8.X is
not likely to see to many more minor releases. You can always do
better with more RAM up to the size of your data, having more ram them
data size will not help noticeably . The off heap row cache can use
this and the OS can cache disk blocks with it.
Edward
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Maxim Potekhinpotek...@bnl.gov wrote:
Dear All,
after all the testing and continuous operation of my first cluster,
I've been given an OK to build a second production Cassandra cluster in
Europe.
There were posts in recent weeks regarding the most stable and solid
Cassandra version.
I was wondering is anything better has appeared since it was last
discussed.
At this juncture, I don't need features, just rock solid stability. Are
0.8.* versions still acceptable,
since I have experience with these, or should I take the plunge to 1+?
I realize that I won't need more than 8GB RAM because I can't make Java
heap
too big. Is worth it
still to pay money for extra RAM? Is the cache located outside of heap in
recent versions?
Thanks to all of you for the advice I'm receiving on this board.
Best regards
Maxim
