Hi Dikang Have you been able to continue evaluating RocksDB? I'm afraid we might be a bit too much ahead in the discussion by already talking about a pluggable architecture, while we haven't fully evaluated yet if we can and want to support an alternative RocksDB engine implementation at all. Because if we don't, we also don't need a pluggable architecture at this point, do we? There's little to be gained from a major refactoring, just to find out that alternative engines we thought of didn't turn out to be a good fit for production for whatever reasons.
On the other hand, if RocksDB is (by whatever standards) a better storage implementation, why not completely switch, instead of just making it an option? But if it's not, is a major refactoring still worth it? On 03.11.17 19:22, Dikang Gu wrote: > Hi, > > We are having discussions about the pluggable storage engine plan on the > jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13475. > > We are trying to figure out a plan for the pluggable storage engine effort. > Right now, the discussion is mainly happening between couple C* committers, > like Blake and me. But I want to increase the visibility, and I'm very > welcome more developers to be involved in the discussion. It will help us > on moving forward on this effort. > > Also, I have a quip as a (very high level) design doc for this project. > https://quip.com/bhw5ABUCi3co > > Thanks > Dikang. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
