a fuse based FS maybe better I guess On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You forked Cassandra 0.5 for that? > > That's... a strange way to do it. > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We are currently doing such things, and now we are still at the start > stage. > > Currently we only plan to store small files. For large files, splitting > to > > small blocks is really one of our options. > > You can check out from here http://code.google.com/p/cassandra-fs/ > > > > Document for this project is lack now, but still welcome any feedback and > > contribution. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Miguel Verde <miguelitov...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Avinash Lakshman > >> <avinash.laksh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> OPP is not required here. You would be better off using a Random > >>> partitioner because you want to get a random distribution of the > metadata. > >> > >> > >> Not required, certainly. However, it strikes me that 1 cluster is > better > >> than 2, and most consumers of a filesystem would expect to be able to > get an > >> ordered listing or tree of the metadata which is easy using the OPP row > key > >> pattern listed previously. You could still do this with the Random > >> partitioner using column names in rows to describe the structure but the > >> current compaction limitations could be an issue if a branch becomes too > >> large, and you'd still have a root row hotspot (at least in the schema > which > >> comes to mind). > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > > > Jeff Zhang > > >
