Adding a new keyspace should be perfectly fine. Unless you have completely distinct workloads for the different keyspaces. Even so you can balanced some stuff at keyspace/table level. But I would go with a new keyspace not with a new cluster given the small size you say you have.
Regards, Carlos Juzarte Rolo Cassandra Consultant Pythian - Love your data rolo@pythian | Twitter: cjrolo | Linkedin: *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo <http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>* Mobile: +31 6 159 61 814 | Tel: +1 613 565 8696 x1649 www.pythian.com On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Ian Rose <ianr...@fullstory.com> wrote: > Hi all - > > We currently have a single cassandra cluster that is dedicated to a > relatively narrow purpose, with just 2 tables. Soon we will need cassandra > for another, unrelated, system, and my debate is whether to just add the > new tables to our existing cassandra cluster or whether to spin up an > entirely new, separate cluster for this new system. > > Does anyone have pros/cons to share on this? It appears from watching > talks and such online that the big users (e.g. Netflix, Spotify) tend to > favor multiple, single-purpose clusters, and thus that was my initial > preference. But we are (for now) no where close to them in traffic so I'm > wondering if running an entirely separate cluster would be a premature > optimization which wouldn't pay for the (nontrivial) overhead in > configuration management and ops. While we are still small it might be > much smarter to reuse our existing clusters so that I can get it done > faster... > > Thanks! > - Ian > > -- --
