On 17/04/12 17:29, Russell Coker wrote:
One of my clients is proposing a project that requires good storage performance and high reliability. It's an entirely new project so there's no legacy code to deal with.
The traditional way of doing this would be to have a cluster of systems maybe in an activa/passive configuration with database replication or with MySQL or PostgreSQL clustering. Those solutions are difficult to manage and upgrade.
I'm not sure if they (Pg and Mysql) are significantly harder to manage and upgrade than Cassandra. Various very large, high-traffic organisations successfully use PostgreSQL; eg. Instragram, and Japan's largest telco, NTT. Managing a cluster of Cassandra servers comes with its own complications, I'm sure. Using a NoSQL solution will require more effort on your coders' part to manage all the edge-cases that regular SQL protects you from.
I didn't know that Facebook had ditched Cassandra in favour of HBase. Does anyone know the reasons behind that? -Toby