Thank you Max. That is a solid choice. You can even configure each
blade with two 15TBytes SSDs (may not be wise), but that would yield
~430TBytes of SSD across 14 nodes in 4u space for around $150k.
-Joe
On 8/2/2021 4:29 PM, Max C. wrote:
Have you considered a blade chassis? Then you can get most of the
redundancy of having lots of small nodes in few(er) rack units.
SuperMicro has a chassis that can accommodate 14 servers in 4U:
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/superblade/enclosure#4U
- Max
On Aug 2, 2021, at 12:05 pm, Joe Obernberger
<joseph.obernber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Jeff. Consider that if rack space is at a premium, what
would make the most sense?
-Joe
On 8/2/2021 2:46 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
IF you bought a server with that topology, you would definitely want
to run lots of instances, perhaps 24, to effectively utilize that
disk space.
You'd also need 24 IPs, and you'd need a NIC that could send/receive
24x the normal bandwidth. And the cost of rebuilding such a node
would be 24x higher than normal (so consider how many of those you'd
have in a cluster, and how often they'd fail).
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:06 AM Joe Obernberger
<joseph.obernber...@gmail.com> wrote:
We have a large amount of data to be stored in Cassandra, and if
we were
to purchase new hardware in limited space, what would make the
most sense?
Dell has machines with 24, 8TByte drives in a 2u configuration.
Given
Cassandra's limitations (?) to large nodes, would it make sense
to run
24 copies of Cassandra on that one node (one per drive)?
Thank you!
-Joe
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<x-msg://42/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
