It sounds like you would be fine doing what you propose. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Rui Silva <rui.si...@telecom.pt> wrote: > Hi all, > > first of all, I have read the Cassandra Hardware requirements page on > Cassandra wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/CassandraHardware . > > I am currently in a simple project that, fetches data from a message > broker. That data can be thought as logging data, about a system user > usage. I need to have a background process to read the data from the > message broker and persist it somewhere. The data I want to persist, > could be stored in a single SQL table, however there is no data to > relate, therefor, I thought I would not need a Relational database > approach. I have been trying Cassandra, and have write the background > process to store all my data, in 3 column families, ordered by timeuuid, > that could be handy for some analysis:). > > I have read some articles/case studies and all of them talk about the > need to support thousands of writes per second. Well in my case I would > only need about 10 writes per second in the worst case scenario. Do I > really need to have 16 GB RAM servers running Cassandra? > > I have two servers, with 4 cpu (2 cores each cpu). And about 4 GB of RAM > each. I was planing on deploying a cassandra node on each, and an apache > web server, to host a simple web application, that will query my > cassandra cluster and use the data stored to present graphs and tables > (statistical information). > > Do you think I may get into trouble with this design choice in the future? > > Best Regards, > > Rui Silva >
-- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support http://riptano.com
