You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Denis Haskin <de...@haskinferguson.net> on 2010/06/04 17:16:58 UTC
http://voltdb.com/ ?
Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
dwh
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by Paul Prescod <pa...@ayogo.com>.
I hope Cassandra is competitive with other solutions well before 50TB
of data. There is a middle ground where you might choose one or the
other. Just as there are areas where you might choose PostGres or
Cassandra.
They claim it will scale all the way up. Right now the likely
dealbreaker will be its immaturity when it comes to availability. To
do almost anything (schema change, node addition, node recovery etc.)
you have to dump and reload. Their roadmap says that they will fix
that in upcoming versions.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Ned Wolpert <ne...@imemories.com> wrote:
> As far as finding its competitors go; If you need acid compliance, Cassandra
> isn't in the list. If you need 50TB of data, is VoltDB in the list?
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles Woerner / IMAP
> <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a high
>> throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed to a caching
>> system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on the in-memory nature
>> of it but I believe that it is both fault tolerant through redundant copies
>> of the data and fully acid compliant.
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charles Woerner
>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra. After
>>> following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside in memory
>>> across the nodes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Jones
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
>>> To: user
>>> Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
>>>
>>> dwh
>
>
>
> --
> Virtually, Ned Wolpert
>
> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
>
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by Charles Woerner / IMAP <ch...@gmail.com>.
I don't know, I'd ask them directly. When I looked at it I was more
interested in the throughput and acid compliance aspects of it.
--
Thanks,
Charles Woerner
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:56 PM, "Parsacala Jr, Nazario R. [Tech]" <nazario.parsacala@gs.com
> wrote:
> So what is the size limit for voltdb ..?
>
>
>
> From: Charles Woerner / IMAP [mailto:charleswoerner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:55 PM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
>
>
>
> Totally agree that Cassandra and voltdb fulfill different needs. I
> would say mysql cluster (ndbd) would be a more appropriate
> competitor. 50tb? Yes and no - it's designed to integrate with a
> system called vertica which does scale to that size, but as a stand
> alone system I don't believe so.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Charles Woerner
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Ned Wolpert <ne...@imemories.com>
> wrote:
>
> As far as finding its competitors go; If you need acid compliance,
> Cassandra isn't in the list. If you need 50TB of data, is VoltDB in
> the list?
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles Woerner / IMAP <charleswoerner@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a
> high throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed
> to a caching system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on
> the in-memory nature of it but I believe that it is both fault
> tolerant through redundant copies of the data and fully acid
> compliant.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Charles Woerner
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com> wrote:
>
> Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com>
> wrote:
>
> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra.
> After following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside
> in memory across the nodes.
>
>
>
> Nick Jones
>
>
>
> From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: user
> Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
>
>
>
> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about
> it.
>
>
> dwh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Virtually, Ned Wolpert
>
> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
RE: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by "Parsacala Jr, Nazario R. [Tech]" <na...@gs.com>.
So what is the size limit for voltdb ..?
From: Charles Woerner / IMAP [mailto:charleswoerner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:55 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Totally agree that Cassandra and voltdb fulfill different needs. I would say mysql cluster (ndbd) would be a more appropriate competitor. 50tb? Yes and no - it's designed to integrate with a system called vertica which does scale to that size, but as a stand alone system I don't believe so.
--
Thanks,
Charles Woerner
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Ned Wolpert <ne...@imemories.com>> wrote:
As far as finding its competitors go; If you need acid compliance, Cassandra isn't in the list. If you need 50TB of data, is VoltDB in the list?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles Woerner / IMAP <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a high throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed to a caching system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on the in-memory nature of it but I believe that it is both fault tolerant through redundant copies of the data and fully acid compliant.
--
Thanks,
Charles Woerner
On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com>> wrote:
Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com>> wrote:
I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra. After following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside in memory across the nodes.
Nick Jones
From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net<ma...@haskinferguson.net>]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
To: user
Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
dwh
--
Virtually, Ned Wolpert
"Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by Charles Woerner / IMAP <ch...@gmail.com>.
Totally agree that Cassandra and voltdb fulfill different needs. I
would say mysql cluster (ndbd) would be a more appropriate
competitor. 50tb? Yes and no - it's designed to integrate with a
system called vertica which does scale to that size, but as a stand
alone system I don't believe so.
--
Thanks,
Charles Woerner
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Ned Wolpert <ne...@imemories.com>
wrote:
> As far as finding its competitors go; If you need acid compliance,
> Cassandra isn't in the list. If you need 50TB of data, is VoltDB in
> the list?
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles Woerner / IMAP <charleswoerner@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a
> high throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed
> to a caching system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on
> the in-memory nature of it but I believe that it is both fault
> tolerant through redundant copies of the data and fully acid
> compliant.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Charles Woerner
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com> wrote:
>
>> Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com>
>> wrote:
>> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra.
>> After following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside
>> in memory across the nodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Jones
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
>> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
>> To: user
>> Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about
>> it.
>>
>>
>> dwh
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Virtually, Ned Wolpert
>
> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by Ned Wolpert <ne...@imemories.com>.
As far as finding its competitors go; If you need acid compliance, Cassandra
isn't in the list. If you need 50TB of data, is VoltDB in the list?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Charles Woerner / IMAP <
charleswoerner@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a high
> throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed to a caching
> system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on the in-memory nature
> of it but I believe that it is both fault tolerant through redundant copies
> of the data and fully acid compliant.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Charles Woerner
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com> wrote:
>
> Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick < <ni...@amd.com>
> nick.jones@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra. After
>> following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside in memory
>> across the nodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Nick Jones*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Denis Haskin [mailto: <de...@haskinferguson.net>
>> denis@haskinferguson.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
>> *To:* user
>> *Subject:* <http://voltdb.com/>http://voltdb.com/ ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
>>
>>
>> dwh
>>
>
>
--
Virtually, Ned Wolpert
"Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..." --Marlowe
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by Charles Woerner / IMAP <ch...@gmail.com>.
I would disagree with that assessment. My take is that Voltdb is a
high throughput, fault tolerant transaction processing db as opposed
to a caching system or key value store. It's easy to get hung up on
the in-memory nature of it but I believe that it is both fault
tolerant through redundant copies of the data and fully acid compliant.
--
Thanks,
Charles Woerner
On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:09 PM, AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com> wrote:
> Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com>
> wrote:
> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra.
> After following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside
> in memory across the nodes.
>
>
>
> Nick Jones
>
>
>
> From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: user
> Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
>
>
>
> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about
> it.
>
>
> dwh
>
>
Re: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by AJ Slater <aj...@zuno.com>.
Its proper competitors are stuff like redis and memcached.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jones, Nick <ni...@amd.com> wrote:
> I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra. After
> following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside in memory
> across the nodes.
>
>
>
> *Nick Jones*
>
>
>
> *From:* Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
> *To:* user
> *Subject:* http://voltdb.com/ ?
>
>
>
> Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
>
>
> dwh
>
RE: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Posted by "Jones, Nick" <ni...@amd.com>.
I saw a tweet about claiming far better performance to Cassandra. After following up, I found out it requires the entire DB to reside in memory across the nodes.
Nick Jones
From: Denis Haskin [mailto:denis@haskinferguson.net]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:17 AM
To: user
Subject: http://voltdb.com/ ?
Anybody looked at VoltDB? I haven't dug into it, but curious about it.
dwh