yes, I would do raid1 on 2 commitlog disks and raid10 on the 6
remaining for OS + data
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Aaron McCurry wrote:
> Thanks, a lot! So for RAID 10, is the thought that the node can survive a
> single disk failure and keep going until a normal maintain cycle? Also are
>
Thanks, a lot! So for RAID 10, is the thought that the node can survive a
single disk failure and keep going until a normal maintain cycle? Also are
you saying that you would configure a single RAID 10 for the whole box? OS
included? I have 8 x 500 Gig drives, so that would leave me with 2T per
My data disks on two of my nodes are RAID-5, just because of circumstances.
My other nodes are JBOD. I don't notice any real difference, but I haven't
strongly benched it.
Ian
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I can think of at least 2 clusters running 32GB boxes with sin
I can think of at least 2 clusters running 32GB boxes with single
Cassandra processes on each. (16 seems to be more common.) At 64 I
would seriously consider multiple processes per machine. You'd want
to configure a Snitch such that same-machine boxes were considered the
same rack, there is no s
I am planning on setting up a Cassandra cluster on a small 16 node cluster
(possibly 32 way). Each machine has 8 cores 32 Gig of ram and 8 hds. My
first thought is to setup one of those hds for the commit log, 6 for data
and leave one for the OS. However I do have a concern about best utilizing
