On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Drew Kutcharian <d...@venarc.com> wrote:
> Hi Gregori, > > I'm about to start a new project and I was considering using MongoDB too, > but I just couldn't find a nice way to scale it. Seems like for scaling you > need to use the same style as MySQL, having master/slaves and replicas, > which for us was a deal breaker. > Indeed. For our use-case the horizontal scaling of MongoDB was not a problem since we do our own sharding. You probably would not want to rely on the less than confidence-inspiring way MongoDB does this. > We just couldn't see how you would scale MongoDB to support massive > databases that you can reach using Cassandra/HBase. > What worries me about HBase is availability. The HDFS namenode problem is not inspiring great confidence. Cassandra is better in this respect. When it doesn't crash, that is. And if you don't mind typing a lot and explaining to junior programmers that "yes, the API makes less sense than Larry Wall's botched attempt at explaining Perl's OO features in the version 5 edition of O'Reilly's "Programming Perl"". > > I personally think that's where Cassandra shines and if you don't need that > massive scale, then there are a lot nicer solutions out there. > > How do you scale MongoDB to store massive amounts of data? > We have a sharding scheme in our server design. Which means that we could have used MySQL if we wanted to -- only it would have not been a good fit for our data model. ~G
