You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> on 2026/03/04 08:46:35 UTC
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> Hi everyone:
> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> Looking forward to your feedback!
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Best regards
> Justin Ling Mao
> Beijing,China
>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org>.
Yes, after further discussions, I will add more details to CEP-61, including the references.
On 2026/03/13 10:36:50 Shailaja Koppu wrote:
> Hi Ling,
>
> This CEP is well written. Can you please add the references you listed to below to the CEP as well? I hope these will be helpful for readers.
>
> Thanks,
> Shailaja
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2026, at 9:50 AM, Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 1.Cluster-Wide Quota
> > Although I have listed it as "Future Work," we all know that "Future Work" sometimes means "I may never do it :)” Implementing that in a leaderless architecture is challenging, particularly because we lack a centralized component(like the Request Router/global admission control in DynamoDB [6]), that provides a global, accurate, and real-time view of the system's load/traffic information.
> >
> > 2.Rejected Alternatives
> > Quota is a well-established feature that has been implemented in many other distributed systems for years, including Apache Kafka[1], HBase[2], Pulsar[3], Hadoop[4], and ZooKeeper[5]. This CEP aims to learn from these systems and adopt their best practices.
> >
> > References:
> > [1] https://docs.confluent.io/kafka/design/quotas.html
> > [2] https://product.hubspot.com/blog/hbase-share-resources
> > [3] https://pulsar-neighborhood.io/articles/apache-pulsar-multi-tenancy-explained/
> > [4] https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-hdfs/HdfsQuotaAdminGuide.html
> > [5] https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.9.4/zookeeperQuotas.html
> > [6] https://blog.bytebytego.com/p/a-deep-dive-into-amazon-dynamodb
> >
> > On 2026/03/04 18:14:56 Bernardo Botella wrote:
> >> Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
> >>
> >> I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
> >>
> >> I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
> >>
> >> That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
> >>
> >> On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
> >> - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
> >> - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
> >>
> >> Really curious on what others think!
> >> Bernardo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>> just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
> >>> proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
> >>> with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
> >>>
> >>> (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> >>>>> Hi everyone:
> >>>>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> >>>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards
> >>>>> Justin Ling Mao
> >>>>> Beijing,China
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Shailaja Koppu <sh...@icloud.com>.
Hi Ling,
This CEP is well written. Can you please add the references you listed to below to the CEP as well? I hope these will be helpful for readers.
Thanks,
Shailaja
> On Mar 13, 2026, at 9:50 AM, Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 1.Cluster-Wide Quota
> Although I have listed it as "Future Work," we all know that "Future Work" sometimes means "I may never do it :)” Implementing that in a leaderless architecture is challenging, particularly because we lack a centralized component(like the Request Router/global admission control in DynamoDB [6]), that provides a global, accurate, and real-time view of the system's load/traffic information.
>
> 2.Rejected Alternatives
> Quota is a well-established feature that has been implemented in many other distributed systems for years, including Apache Kafka[1], HBase[2], Pulsar[3], Hadoop[4], and ZooKeeper[5]. This CEP aims to learn from these systems and adopt their best practices.
>
> References:
> [1] https://docs.confluent.io/kafka/design/quotas.html
> [2] https://product.hubspot.com/blog/hbase-share-resources
> [3] https://pulsar-neighborhood.io/articles/apache-pulsar-multi-tenancy-explained/
> [4] https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-hdfs/HdfsQuotaAdminGuide.html
> [5] https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.9.4/zookeeperQuotas.html
> [6] https://blog.bytebytego.com/p/a-deep-dive-into-amazon-dynamodb
>
> On 2026/03/04 18:14:56 Bernardo Botella wrote:
>> Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
>>
>> I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
>>
>> I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
>>
>> That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
>>
>> On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
>> - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
>> - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
>>
>> Really curious on what others think!
>> Bernardo
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
>>> proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
>>> with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
>>>
>>> (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
>>>>
>>>> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone:
>>>>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Justin Ling Mao
>>>>> Beijing,China
>>>>>
>>
>>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org>.
1.Cluster-Wide Quota
Although I have listed it as "Future Work," we all know that "Future Work" sometimes means "I may never do it :)” Implementing that in a leaderless architecture is challenging, particularly because we lack a centralized component(like the Request Router/global admission control in DynamoDB [6]), that provides a global, accurate, and real-time view of the system's load/traffic information.
2.Rejected Alternatives
Quota is a well-established feature that has been implemented in many other distributed systems for years, including Apache Kafka[1], HBase[2], Pulsar[3], Hadoop[4], and ZooKeeper[5]. This CEP aims to learn from these systems and adopt their best practices.
References:
[1] https://docs.confluent.io/kafka/design/quotas.html
[2] https://product.hubspot.com/blog/hbase-share-resources
[3] https://pulsar-neighborhood.io/articles/apache-pulsar-multi-tenancy-explained/
[4] https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-hdfs/HdfsQuotaAdminGuide.html
[5] https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.9.4/zookeeperQuotas.html
[6] https://blog.bytebytego.com/p/a-deep-dive-into-amazon-dynamodb
On 2026/03/04 18:14:56 Bernardo Botella wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
>
> I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
>
> I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
>
> That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
>
> On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
> - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
> - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
>
> Really curious on what others think!
> Bernardo
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
> > proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
> > with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
> >
> > (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
> >>
> >> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone:
> >>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> >>> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Justin Ling Mao
> >>> Beijing,China
> >>>
>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org>.
CEP-41 and CEP-61 are different things, even though both use rate limiting to throttle traffic and address some pain points. The focus of Quota is on solving specific issues such as noisy neighbors, hot/large nodes and partition. Quota is also a low-hanging fruit that we can eat soon. CEP-41 and CEP-61 are not mutually exclusive, both aim to make Cassandra great again:)
On 2026/03/06 09:29:03 Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
> That might be all true, I am just trying to figure out what are the
> implications of having both at the same time. Simply put, like, you
> will be able to turn on each at the same time? Or just one at a time?
> What happens when it is mixed? Is that not just too complex to admin?
> That is a lot of "rate limiting" configuration at once to my taste.
> Each solution would have its own set of configurations, I guess. Who
> is going to test how it works together and what consequences it has?
> Less configuration and more "dumb" the better.
>
> But hey, maybe this looks all fine for folks and the complexity of
> having two rate limiting concepts at once is not a problem ...
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:15 PM Bernardo Botella
> <co...@bernardobotella.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
> >
> > I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
> >
> > I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
> >
> > That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
> >
> > On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
> > - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
> > - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
> >
> > Really curious on what others think!
> > Bernardo
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
> > > proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
> > > with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
> > >
> > > (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
> > >>
> > >> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> > >>> Hi everyone:
> > >>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> > >>> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards
> > >>> Justin Ling Mao
> > >>> Beijing,China
> > >>>
> >
>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org>.
That might be all true, I am just trying to figure out what are the
implications of having both at the same time. Simply put, like, you
will be able to turn on each at the same time? Or just one at a time?
What happens when it is mixed? Is that not just too complex to admin?
That is a lot of "rate limiting" configuration at once to my taste.
Each solution would have its own set of configurations, I guess. Who
is going to test how it works together and what consequences it has?
Less configuration and more "dumb" the better.
But hey, maybe this looks all fine for folks and the complexity of
having two rate limiting concepts at once is not a problem ...
On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:15 PM Bernardo Botella
<co...@bernardobotella.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
>
> I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
>
> I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
>
> That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
>
> On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
> - I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
> - Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
>
> Really curious on what others think!
> Bernardo
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
> > proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
> > with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
> >
> > (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
> >>
> >> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone:
> >>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> >>> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Justin Ling Mao
> >>> Beijing,China
> >>>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Bernardo Botella <co...@bernardobotella.com>.
Thanks for pointing this out Stefan!
I agree that these proposals are closely related, but I view them as complementary rather than competing.
I believe they protect the cluster at two different levels: CEP-61 provides a flexible layer for multi tenancy where operators can set specific policies to meet different customer requirements. This would even allow for 'over-provisioning' quotas while maintaining a safety net that CEP-41 could provide, protecting nodes from total meltdown if those limits are reached or if system signals show distress.
That being said, I think there is value on exploring those two proposals in parallel.
On the actual CEP-61, a couple of thoughts:
- I think there would be value on trying to articulate how the cluster wide quota management will work in the future. I see gossip as one proposed path forward. I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who know more than I do around the protocol and the potential alternatives. I am basically trying to gain the confidence that we actually have a path forward for cluster wide quota handling, even if it is implemented in a different step of this CEP delivery.
- Acording to the CEP template, I'd love to see a rejected alternatives section on the CEP.
Really curious on what others think!
Bernardo
> On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
> proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
> with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
>
> (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
>>
>> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
>>> Hi everyone:
>>> I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>>
>>> --------------------------------
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Justin Ling Mao
>>> Beijing,China
>>>
Re: CASSANDRA-21158: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant
Posted by Štefan Miklošovič <sm...@apache.org>.
Hey,
just saying there is also (1) already. There seems to be competing
proposals in this space we should form some opinions on and proceed
with the better one or pick the best approaches from both.
(1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-41+%28DRAFT%29+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Rate+Limiter
On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:47 AM Ling Mao <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I have published CEP-61: Quota Management. You can find the full proposal here: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-61%3A+Quota+Management]. I would appreciate any feedback or review comments from the community.
>
> On 2026/02/24 09:47:44 Justin Ling Mao wrote:
> > Hi everyone:
> > I have created a JIRA ticket:CASSANDRA-21158, regarding a new feature: Implementing quota management for multi-tenant.You can find the design document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGDjBsuVkuISbN8lqxoZUuGbx0qRhuNA8BAxF48a24kIf you are interested, please join the discussion. Once we’ve had a thorough discussion and if the community finds this feature valuable, I will proceed to create a CEP (Cassandra Enhancement Proposal) and subsequently submit a PR.
> > Looking forward to your feedback!
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > Best regards
> > Justin Ling Mao
> > Beijing,China
> >