8 ms·

The Cassandra benchmarks were only for ~1 million writes/sec. I think you'd need to support around 1 billion writes/sec for this application. I think it's possi

The Cassandra benchmarks were only for ~1 million writes/sec. I think you'd need to support around 1 billion writes/sec for this application. I think it's possible. The "privacy concerns" weren't necessarily my own, I just anticipated that others might have them and therefore not adopt the system. For me, the point was to share what sites you were visiting because you'd be annotating (well, chat/message-boarding) those sites with others. Additionally, I thought it would be cool to see who was where at a given time, what sites were popular, or which pages people found particularly interesting (interesting enough to visit anyway) at any given time.

kenshaw 12y ago
You get diminishing returns, of course, on any kind of technology. You would just basically partition this data out to a 1000 different clusters then, each capable of supporting 1 million writes/second. That would be done through an algorithm along the lines of this: partition_id = well_distributed_hash(normalize_domain_name(<domain>)) really don't think this would be an issue, or even a concern, as 1 billion writes per second are "Google-levels" of writes. One would likely run out of financial resources supporting an expansion of 86 terrabytes / day (assuming 1kb minimum new data per write), far faster than you would ever max out the capabilities of the technology. It's more a finance/business exercise to determine if revenue inflows would actually meet, cover, or exceed revenue outflows on a project like this. You can always make the technology scale and meet the demand.