On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Mark Robson wrote: > For me an important difference is that Cassandra is operationally much more > straightforward - there is only one type of node, and it is fully redundant > (depending what consistency level you're using). > > This seems to be an advantage in Cassandra vs most other distributed storage > systems, which almost all seem to require some "master" nodes which have > different operational requirements (e.g. cannot fail, need to be failed over > manually or have another HA solution installed for them)
These two remain the #1 and #2 reasons I recommend Cassandra over HBase. At the end of the day, Cassandra is an *absolute* dream to manage across multiple data centers. I could go on and on about the voodoo that is expanding, contracting, and rebalancing a Cassandra cluster. It's pretty awesome. That being said, we're getting ready to spin up an HBase cluster. If you're wanting increment/decrement, more complex range scans, etc. then HBase is a great candidate. Especially if you don't need it to span multiple data centers. We're using Cassandra for our main things, and then HBase+Hive for analytics. There's room for both. Especially if you're using Hadoop with Cassandra. --Joe
