I shouldn't have used the word "spinning"... SSDs are a great option as well.
I also agree with all the "expensive SPOF" points others have made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2013, at 6:56 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cassandra is designed to write and read data in a way that is optimized for > physical spinning disks. > > Running C* on a SAN introduces a layer of abstraction that, at best negates > those optimizations, and at worst introduces additional overhead. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Kanwar Sangha <kan...@mavenir.com> wrote: > >> Ok. What would be the drawbacks J >> >> From: Michael Kjellman [mailto:mkjell...@barracuda.com] >> Sent: 21 February 2013 17:12 >> To: user@cassandra.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Cassandra with SAN >> >> No, this is a really really bad idea and C* was not designed for this, in >> fact, it was designed so you don't need to have a large expensive SAN. >> >> Don't be tempted by the shiny expensive SAN. :) >> >> If money is no object instead throw SSD's in your nodes and run 10G between >> racks >> >> From: Kanwar Sangha <kan...@mavenir.com> >> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> >> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:56 PM >> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> >> Subject: Cassandra with SAN >> >> Hi – Is it a good idea to use Cassandra with SAN ? Say a SAN which provides >> me 8 Petabytes of storage. Would I not be I/O bound irrespective of the no >> of Cassandra machines and scaling by adding >> machines won’t help ? >> >> Thanks >> Kanwar >> >> ---------------------------------- >> Copy, by Barracuda, helps you store, protect, and share all your amazing >> things. Start today: www.copy.com. >>
