You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Jean Tremblay <je...@zen-innovations.com> on 2015/04/07 13:13:19 UTC
Cassandra vs OS x
Hi,
Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on an Mac OS x?
Why would this not work?
Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your experience with this?
Thanks
Jean
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Ali Akhtar <al...@gmail.com>.
Cost may be a factor? OS X servers would cost a lot more than Linux servers.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Jean Tremblay <
jean.tremblay@zen-innovations.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on an
> Mac OS x?
> Why would this not work?
> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
> experience with this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jean
>
>
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Michal Michalski <mi...@boxever.com>.
Out of curiosity - could you elaborate on that or drop a link?
Kind regards,
Michał Michalski,
michal.michalski@boxever.com
On 7 April 2015 at 12:41, Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's single-threaded for writing :)
>
> 2015-04-07 13:13 GMT+02:00 Jean Tremblay <
> jean.tremblay@zen-innovations.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on an
>> Mac OS x?
>> Why would this not work?
>> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
>> experience with this?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>.
one more good summary:
http://superuser.com/questions/845143/any-limitation-for-having-many-files-in-a-directory-in-mac-os-x
2015-04-07 13:49 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
> That is the reason for trying to work with ZFS. Unfortunately, it was
> dropped.
> And that is the reason pcie interface for SSD in my MacBook pro.
>
> 2015-04-07 13:46 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
>
>> HFS:
>> The Catalog File, which stores all the file and directory records in a
>> single data structure, results in performance problems when the system
>> allows multitasking <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking>,
>> as only one program can write to this structure at a time, meaning that
>> many programs may be waiting in queue due to one program "hogging" the
>> system.[2]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#cite_note-2>
>>
>> HFS+
>> The HFS Plus Catalog File is very similar to the HFS Catalog File
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#Design>, the main
>> differences being records are larger to allow more fields and to allow for
>> those fields to be larger (for example to allow the longer 255-character
>> unicode file names in HFS Plus). A record in the HFS Catalog File is 512
>> bytes in size, a record in the HFS Plus Catalog File is 4 KB in Mac OS and
>> 8 KB in OS X. Fields in HFS are of fixed size, in HFS Plus the size can
>> vary depending on the actual size of the data they store.
>>
>> 2015-04-07 13:41 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> It's single-threaded for writing :)
>>>
>>> 2015-04-07 13:13 GMT+02:00 Jean Tremblay <
>>> jean.tremblay@zen-innovations.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on
>>>> an Mac OS x?
>>>> Why would this not work?
>>>> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
>>>> experience with this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>.
That is the reason for trying to work with ZFS. Unfortunately, it was
dropped.
And that is the reason pcie interface for SSD in my MacBook pro.
2015-04-07 13:46 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
> HFS:
> The Catalog File, which stores all the file and directory records in a
> single data structure, results in performance problems when the system
> allows multitasking <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking>,
> as only one program can write to this structure at a time, meaning that
> many programs may be waiting in queue due to one program "hogging" the
> system.[2]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#cite_note-2>
>
> HFS+
> The HFS Plus Catalog File is very similar to the HFS Catalog File
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#Design>, the main
> differences being records are larger to allow more fields and to allow for
> those fields to be larger (for example to allow the longer 255-character
> unicode file names in HFS Plus). A record in the HFS Catalog File is 512
> bytes in size, a record in the HFS Plus Catalog File is 4 KB in Mac OS and
> 8 KB in OS X. Fields in HFS are of fixed size, in HFS Plus the size can
> vary depending on the actual size of the data they store.
>
> 2015-04-07 13:41 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
>
>> It's single-threaded for writing :)
>>
>> 2015-04-07 13:13 GMT+02:00 Jean Tremblay <
>> jean.tremblay@zen-innovations.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on
>>> an Mac OS x?
>>> Why would this not work?
>>> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
>>> experience with this?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jean
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>.
HFS:
The Catalog File, which stores all the file and directory records in a
single data structure, results in performance problems when the system
allows multitasking <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking>,
as only one program can write to this structure at a time, meaning that
many programs may be waiting in queue due to one program "hogging" the
system.[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#cite_note-2>
HFS+
The HFS Plus Catalog File is very similar to the HFS Catalog File
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System#Design>, the main
differences being records are larger to allow more fields and to allow for
those fields to be larger (for example to allow the longer 255-character
unicode file names in HFS Plus). A record in the HFS Catalog File is 512
bytes in size, a record in the HFS Plus Catalog File is 4 KB in Mac OS and
8 KB in OS X. Fields in HFS are of fixed size, in HFS Plus the size can
vary depending on the actual size of the data they store.
2015-04-07 13:41 GMT+02:00 Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>:
> It's single-threaded for writing :)
>
> 2015-04-07 13:13 GMT+02:00 Jean Tremblay <
> jean.tremblay@zen-innovations.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on an
>> Mac OS x?
>> Why would this not work?
>> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
>> experience with this?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>
Re: Cassandra vs OS x
Posted by Serega Sheypak <se...@gmail.com>.
It's single-threaded for writing :)
2015-04-07 13:13 GMT+02:00 Jean Tremblay <je...@zen-innovations.com>
:
> Hi,
>
> Why do everyone say that Cassandra should not be used in production on an
> Mac OS x?
> Why would this not work?
> Are there anyone out there using OS x in production? What is your
> experience with this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jean
>
>