On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 05:59 -0500, Colin Clark wrote: > What were the right questions? I view Facebook's move away from > Cassandra as somewhat significant.
For here, I guess it's only significant if there are interesting technical reasons. I find Cassandra's design tradeoffs close to optimal, so I'm naturally curious if there's some axis (eg partial ordering of writes, trading off latency for consistency etc) involved or an interesting domain problem (eg graph processing). > And are they indeed using HBase then, and if so, what were the right > answers? Lots of companies do or don't adopt technology for non-technical reasons. Facebook I gather has made big investments in Hadoop, I'd say it's natural to look at things that run on that ecosystem. Bill > > On 7/6/2010 5:34 AM, David Strauss wrote: > > On 2010-07-05 15:40, Eric Evans wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 13:14 +0100, Bill de hÓra wrote: > > > > > > > This person's understanding is that Facebook 'no longer contributes to > > > > nor uses Cassandra.': > > > > > > > > http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/05/17/beyond-cassandra/ > > > > > > > Last I heard, Facebook was still using Cassandra for what they had > > > always used it for, Inbox Search. Last I heard, there were no plans in > > > place to change that. > > > > > I had the opportunity to talk with some Facebook infrastructure > > engineers in San Francisco over the past few weeks. They are no longer > > using Cassandra, even for inbox search. > > > > Inbox search was intended to be an initial push for using Cassandra more > > broadly, not the primary target of the Cassandra design. Unfortunately, > > Facebook's engineers later decided that Cassandra wasn't the right > > answer to the right question for Facebook's purposes. > > > > That decision isn't an indictment of Cassandra's capability; it's > > confirmation that Cassandra isn't everything to everyone. But we already > > knew that. :-) > > > >
