Hi all, thanks. Very helpful.
@Tupshin: With a 3 node cluster and RF 3 isn't it a problem if one node fails (due to hardware problems, for example). According to the C* docs, writes fail if the number of nodes is smaller than the RF. I agree that it will run fine as long as all nodes are up and they can handle the load but eventually hardware will fail. Markus Tupshin Harper <tups...@tupshin.com> schrieb am 13:44 Montag, 14.April 2014: I do not agree with this advice. It can be perfectly reasonable to have #nodes < 2*RF. >It is common to deploy a 3 node cluster with RF=3 and it works fine as long as >each node can handle 100% of your data, and keep up with the workload. >-Tupshin >On Apr 14, 2014 5:25 AM, "Markus Jais" <markus.j...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >Hello, >> >> >>currently reading the "Practical Cassandra". In the section about replication >>factors the book says: >> >> >>"It is generally not recommended to set a replication factor of 3 if you have >>fewer than six nodes in a data center". >> >> >>Why is that? What problems would arise if I had a replication factor of 3 and >>only 5 nodes? >> >> >>Does that mean that for a replication of 4 I would need at least 8 nodes and >>for a factor of 5 at least 10 nodes? >> >> >>Not saying that I would factor 5 andn 10 nodes, just curious about how this >>works. >> >> >>All the best, >> >> >>Markus > >
