IMHO this is a bad idea. * You secondary DC will have no redundancy, when you restart it you will be relying on HH and nodetool repair. * If your secondary DC machine fails so does the singe copy of your backup. * There will be additional management overhead for managing an unbalanced DC. * Restoring will be a pain.
Cheers ----------------- Aaron Morton Freelance Cassandra Consultant New Zealand @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 19/03/2013, at 5:37 AM, Aaron Turner <synfina...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rene Kochen > <rene.koc...@emea.schange.com> wrote: >> Hi Aaron, >> >> Thank you for your answer! >> >> My idea was to do the snapshots in the backup DC only. That way the backup >> procedure will not affect the live DC. However I'm afraid that a >> point-in-time recovery via the snapshots in the second DC (first restore >> backup on backup DC and then repair live DC) will take too long. I expect >> the data to grow significantly. >> >> It makes more sense to use the second cluster as a hot standby (and make >> snapshots on both clusters). > > Remember, snapshots are *cheap*. There's almost literally zero I/O > associated with a snapshot. Backing up all that data off the system > is a different story, but at least it's large sequential reads which > is pretty well optimized. > > -- > Aaron Turner > http://synfin.net/ Twitter: @synfinatic > http://tcpreplay.synfin.net/ - Pcap editing and replay tools for Unix & > Windows > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. > -- Benjamin Franklin > "carpe diem quam minimum credula postero"
