; to all the new nodes that come online(cassandra actually has a very data
>> center/rack aware topology to transfer data correctly to not use up all
>> bandwidth unecessarily…I am not sure mongodb has that). Anyways, just food
>> for thought.
>>
>> From: aaron morton
>> mai
ashes but the data
is still good on the drives, it would just mean bringing up the node using the
same storage ? would this not be fast…?
From: aaron morton [mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com]
Sent: 21 February 2013 11:46
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick que
dra.apache.org>>
> Date: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:39 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
> mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>, Vegard Berget
> mailto:p...@fantasista.no>>
> Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question
2013 1:39 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <
> user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>, Vegard
> Berget mailto:p...@fantasista.no>>
> Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question
>
>
gt;>
>> From: Bryan Talbot mailto:btal...@aeriagames.com>>
>> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
>> mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:04 PM
>> To: "user@cassandra.apache.o
ailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <
> user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:04 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <
> user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassa
g>>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:04 PM
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question(good additional info)
This calculation is incorrect btw. 10,000 GB
This calculation is incorrect btw. 10,000 GB transferred at 1.25 GB / sec
would complete in about 8,000 seconds which is just 2.2 hours and not 5.5
days. The error is in the conversion (1hr/60secs) which is off by 2 orders
of magnitude since (1hr/3600secs) is the correct conversion.
-Bryan
On
19, 2013 7:02:56 AM
Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question(good additional info)
The 40 TB use case you heard about is probably one 40TB mysql machine
that someone migrated to mongo so it would be "web scale" Cassandra is
NOT good with drives that big, get a blade center or a
assandra.apache.org>"
> mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
> Date: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:39 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
> mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>, Vegard Berget
> mailto:p...@f
user@cassandra.apache.org>"
mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>, Vegard Berget
mailto:p...@fantasista.no>>
Subject: Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question
My experience is repair of 300GB compressed data takes longer than 300GB of
uncompressed, but I cannot point to an exact nu
;
> - Original Message -
> From:
> user@cassandra.apache.org
>
> To:
>
> Cc:
>
> Sent:
> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:41:25 +1300
> Subject:
> Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question
>
>
> If you have spinning disk and 1G networking and no virtual nodes, I
Subject:Re: cassandra vs. mongodb quick question
If you have spinning disk and 1G networking and no virtual nodes, I
would still say 300G to 500G is a soft limit.
If you are using virtual nodes, SSD, JBOD disk configuration or
faster networking you may go higher.
The limiting factors are the
If you have spinning disk and 1G networking and no virtual nodes, I would still
say 300G to 500G is a soft limit.
If you are using virtual nodes, SSD, JBOD disk configuration or faster
networking you may go higher.
The limiting factors are the time it take to repair, the time it takes to
rep
So I found out mongodb varies their node size from 1T to 42T per node depending
on the profile. So if I was going to be writing a lot but rarely changing
rows, could I also use cassandra with a per node size of +20T or is that not
advisable?
Thanks,
Dean
15 matches
Mail list logo
