Yes, we are in a rush at the beginning of this prototype. Now the code structure looks better.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > The strange part is copying the entire cassandra source tree. > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > Previously we use the cassandra-0.6, but we'd like to leverage the hector > > java client since it has more advanced features. And hector currently > only > > support cassandra-0.5. > > Why you think using casandra-0.5 is a stange way to do it ? Is > cassandra-0.6 > > incompatibility with cassandra-0.5 ? The migration to cassandra-0.6 will > > cost much ? > > > > > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > > > Jeff Zhang > > > -- Best Regards Jeff Zhang
