It's an anti-pattern and there are better ways to do this. I have implemented the paging algorithm you've described using wide rows and bucketing. This approach is a more efficient utilization of Cassandra's built in wholesome goodness.
Also, I wouldn't let any number of clients (huge) connect directly the cluster to do this-put some type of app server in between to handle the comm's and fan out. You'll get better utilization of resources and less overhead in addition to flexibility of which data center you're utilizing to serve requests. -- Colin 320-221-9531 On Jun 7, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com> wrote: I just checked the source and in 2.1.0 it's not deprecated. So it *might* be *being* deprecated but I haven't seen anything stating that. On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Colin <colpcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe Byteorderedpartitioner is being deprecated and for good reason. > I would look at what you could achieve by using wide rows and > murmur3partitioner. > > > > -- > Colin > 320-221-9531 > > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com> wrote: > > We have the requirement to have clients read from our tables while they're > being written. > > Basically, any write that we make to cassandra needs to be sent out over > the Internet to our customers. > > We also need them to resume so if they go offline, they can just pick up > where they left off. > > They need to do this in parallel, so if we have 20 cassandra nodes, they > can have 20 readers each efficiently (and without coordination) reading > from our tables. > > Here's how we're planning on doing it. > > We're going to use the ByteOrderedPartitioner . > > I'm writing with a primary key of the timestamp, however, in practice, > this would yield hotspots. > > (I'm also aware that time isn't a very good pk in a distribute system as I > can easily have a collision so we're going to use a scheme similar to a > uuid to make it unique per writer). > > One node would take all the load, followed by the next node, etc. > > So my plan to stop this is to prefix a slice ID to the timestamp. This > way each piece of content has a unique ID, but the prefix will place it on > a node. > > The slide ID is just a byte… so this means there are 255 buckets in which > I can place data. > > This means I can have clients each start with a slice, and a timestamp, > and page through the data with tokens. > > This way I can have a client reading with 255 threads from 255 regions in > the cluster, in parallel, without any hot spots. > > Thoughts on this strategy? > > -- > > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com > Location: *San Francisco, CA* > Skype: *burtonator* > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com > … or check out my Google+ profile > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > <http://spinn3r.com> > War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Corporations are > people. > > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* Skype: *burtonator* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> <http://spinn3r.com> War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Corporations are people.
