> Would it help if I partitioned the computing resources of my physical > machines into VMs? No. Just like cutting a cake into smaller pieces does not mean you can eat more without getting fat.
In the general case, regular HDD and 1 Gbe and 8 to 16 virtual cores and 8GB to 16GB ram, you can expect to comfortably run up 400GB of data (maybe 500GB). That is replicated storage, so 400 / 3 = 133GB if you replicate data 3 times. Hope that helps. ----------------- Aaron Morton Freelance Developer @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 19/09/2012, at 3:42 PM, Віталій Тимчишин <tiv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Network also matters. It would take a lot of time sending 6TB over 1Gb link, > even fully saturating it. IMHO You can try with 10Gb, but you will need to > raise your streaming/compaction limits a lot. > Also you will need to ensure that your compaction can keep up. It is often > done in one thread and I am not sure if it will be enough for you. As of > parallel compaction, I don't know exact limitations and if it will be working > in your case. > > 2012/9/18 Casey Deccio <ca...@deccio.net> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:54 AM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com> wrote: >> each with several disks having large capacity, totaling 10 - 12 TB. Is this >> (another) bad idea? > > Yes. Very bad. > If you had 6TB on average system with spinning disks you would measure > duration of repairs and compactions in days. > > If you want to store 12 TB of data you will need more machines. > > > Would it help if I partitioned the computing resources of my physical > machines into VMs? For example, I put four VMs on each of three virtual > machines, each with a dedicated 2TB drive. I can now have four tokens in the > ring and a RF of 3. And of course, I can arrange them into a way that makes > the most sense. Is this getting any better, or am I missing the point? > > Casey > > > > -- > Best regards, > Vitalii Tymchyshyn
