7 ms·

Can be replaced with 300 servers with ScyllaDB :-)

• leetrout 4y ago
  Because of no JVM? Or because of its different architecture (different caching and such)? I would expect it to still require more for high availability but from what I have heard around ScyllaDB it does seem there is a benefit to it over cassandra.
  • neeh0 4y ago
    Relevant post: https://instagram-engineering.com/open-sourcing-a-10x-reduction-in-apache-cassandra-tail-latency-d64f86b43589 https://instagram-engineering.com/open-sourcing-a-10x-reduct...
• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You might need about 1500. I think 64 TB of flash is the standard for a 2U database server these days.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• riku_iki 4y ago
  will ScyllaDB shrink data 1k times using some magic?
  • AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    No. Scylla has also stalled in support of features that Cassandra offers, which is strange because they came out of the gates like gangbusters. It is not the drop in replacement they advertise. But I'm not going to tell you "don't use scylladb". They have lots of educational whitepapers for maxing I/O and hardware that apply both to cassandra and scylladb. The biggest thing with cassandra and scylla is that you need a technical management to understand the headaches, and appreciate the silent benefits. Cassandra places often have frustrated management about the cassandra management problems, but when I ask "has your cluster ever gone down?" and they say no, even across major version upgrades and the like, expansions, etc. Also keep in mind that cassandra also has a tendency to make your big data bigger with timestamps-per-cell, replicas, etc.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]