Hi Ahmed, As other have said that HBase and Cassandra have subtle differences. This post might provide you insight into difference between them: http://bigdatanoob.blogspot.com/2012/11/hbase-vs-cassandra.html
Also, when you said hbase is doing 2-3k per second. Is it 2-3k write ops in the entire cluster or 2-3k write ops per RS in the cluster? ~Anil On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Asaf Mesika <[email protected]> wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > > On 22 בינו 2013, at 20:47, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM, S Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've read articles online where I see cassandra doing like 20K writers per > > second, and hbase around 2-3K. > > > Numbers with 0 context don't mean much, if at all. > > > I understand both systems have their strenghts, but I am curious as to what > > is holding hbase from reaching similiar results? > > > Is it HDFS that is the issue? Or hbase does certain things (to its > > advantage) that slows the write path down? > > > Our writes are generally quite fast, I think at the moment some > improvements can be made at the client level. I did some tests last > year and I could get better throughput with the asynchbase client > compared to the normal Java client because the former has call queues > per region server. Both tests were using the same region servers, > uploading the same data set. > > Can you elaborate more on why asynchronous hbase client is better? > > J-D > -- Thanks & Regards, Anil Gupta
