@Ahmed -

we are trying to use Redis + gizzard - with gizzard responsible for sharding
and maintaining replicas . Need to test it well before plunging into
production though.

Cheers,
Deepu.

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:46 PM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The only issue I see (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you loose,
> is that you have single points of failure in the system now i.e. redis etc.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Sandeep Kalidindi at PaGaLGuY.com <
> sandeep.kalidi...@pagalguy.com> wrote:
>
>> @michael - benjamin answered your question.
>>
>> Thing is if you use mysql just for indices you are not at all using the
>> benefits of the whole relational database engine(which is fine) but then are
>> inheriting all its disadvantages.
>>
>> You can use mysql for storing indices and then write your own sharding
>> layer on top and then make sure network partitions are taken care of and
>> then.. oh wait you are already starting to create a poor mans cassandra on
>> top of Mysql. Why not just use cassandra ???
>>
>> One valid argument can be mysql is solid in stability where as cassandra
>> still yet to prove it is rock solid. But then 0.7 release looks awesome.
>> There are some really wonderful people developing cassandra and then here to
>> answer most of your questions and then if you still need there is
>> Riptano(and jonathan ellis is one hell of a person to discuss your infra
>> issues).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Deepu.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin Black <b...@b3k.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Michael Dürgner <mich...@duergner.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The thing about slow on joins is true (we experience that ourselves)
>>> but still I wonder myself, why you use cassandra for the indices. Can't you
>>> just store them in MySQL although?
>>> >
>>>
>>> ...and then shard and shard and shard to deal with hundreds of
>>> millions or billions of rows?  That's usually the trade-off.  Both can
>>> be made to work, but neither is free.
>>>
>>>
>>> b
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to