So long as data loss and downtime are acceptable risks a one node cluster is fine. Personally this is usually only acceptable on my workstation, even my dev environment is redundant, because servers fail, usually when you least want them to, like for example when you've decided to save costs by waiting before implementing redundancy. Could a failure end up costing you more than you've saved? I'd rather get cheaper servers (maybe even used off ebay??) so I could have at least two of them.
If you do go with a one node solution, altho I haven't tried it myself Priam looks like a good place to start for backups, otherwise roll your own with incremental snapshotting turned on and a watch on the snapshot directory. Storage on something like S3 or Cloud Files is very cheap so there's no good excuse for no backups. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM, R. Verlangen <ro...@us2.nl> wrote: > Hi Drew, > > One other disadvantage is the lack of "consistency level" and > "replication". Both ware part of the high availability / redundancy. So you > would really need to backup your single-node-"cluster" to some other > external location. > > Good luck! > > > 2012/3/15 Drew Kutcharian <d...@venarc.com> > >> Hi, >> >> We are working on a project that initially is going to have very little >> data, but we would like to use Cassandra to ease the future scalability. >> Due to budget constraints, we were thinking to run a single node Cassandra >> for now and then add more nodes as required. >> >> I was wondering if it is recommended to run a single node cassandra in >> production? Are there any other issues besides lack of high availability? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Drew >> >> >
