The theoretical maximum of 10G is not even close to what you actually get.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.intel.com%2Fsupport%2Fnetwork%2Fsb%2Ffedexcasestudyfinal.pdf&ei=HawmUcWIM6q20QG8j4DIBw&usg=AFQjCNG8Qskl9vXdJvB7OLtIPQgpa
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
If you are lazy like me wolfram alpha can help
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=transfer+42TB+at+10GbE&a=UnitClash_*TB.*Tebibytes--
10 hours 15 minutes 43.59 seconds
Cheers
-
Aaron Morton
Freelance Cassandra Developer
New Zealand
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com
you have 86400 seconds a day so 42T could take less than 12 hours on 10Gb
link
19 lut 2013 02:01, "Hiller, Dean" napisał(a):
> I thought about this more, and even with a 10Gbit network, it would take
> 40 days to bring up a replacement node if mongodb did truly have a 42T /
> node like I had hear
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
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 high density
chassis.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Hiller, Dean wrote:
> I thought about this mor
I thought about this more, and even with a 10Gbit network, it would take 40
days to bring up a replacement node if mongodb did truly have a 42T / node like
I had heard. I wrote the below email to the person I heard this from going
back to basics which really puts some perspective on it….(and a
11 matches
Mail list logo
