Indeed I did not really compare C* operational simplicity to traditional
RDBMS. Implicity the comparison is made with other NoSQL datastore.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> c. operational simplicity due to master-less architecture. This feature
>> is, although quite transparent for developers, is a key selling point.
>> Having suffered when installing manually a Hadoop cluster, I happen to love
>> the deployment simplicity of C*, only one process per node, no moving parts.
>>
>
> Asserting that Cassandra, as a fully functioning production system, is
> currently easier to operate than RDBMS is just false. It is still false
> even if we ignore the availability of experienced RDBMS operators and
> decades of RDBMS operational best practice.
>
> The quality of software engineering practice in RDBMS land also most
> assuredly results in a more easily operable system in many, many use cases.
> Yes, Cassandra is more tolerant to individual node failures. This turns out
> to not matter as much in terms of "operability" as non-operators appear to
> think it does. Very trivial operational activities ("create a new
> columnfamily" or "replace a failed node") are subject to failure mode edge
> cases which often are not resolvable without brute force methods.
>
> I am unable to get my head around the oft-heard marketing assertion that a
> data-store in which such common activities are not bulletproof is capable
> of being than better to operate than the RDBMS status quo. The production
> operators I know also do not agree that Cassandra is simple to operate.
>
> All the above aside, I continue to maintain that Cassandra is the best at
> being the type of thing that it is. If you have a need to horizontally
> scale a use case that is well suited for its strength and poorly suited for
> RDBMS, you should use it. Far fewer people actually have this sort of case
> than think they do.
>
> =Rob
>
