Re: HBase and Cassandra on StackOverflow
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Edward Capriolo
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Time Less <timelessness@...> wrote:
>> Most of your points are dead-on.
>> > Cassandra is no less complex than HBase. All of this complexity is
>> > "hidden" in the sense that with Hadoop/HBase the layering is obvious --
>> > HDFS, HBase, etc. -- but the Cassandra internals are no less layered.
>> > Operationally, however, HBase is more complex. Admins have to configure
>> > and manage ZooKeeper, HDFS, and HBase. Could this be improved?
>> I strongly disagree with the premise. Having personally been involved in
>> the Digg Cassandra rollout, and spent up until a couple months ago being in
>> part-time weekly contact with the Digg Cassandra administrator, and having
>> very close ties to the SimpleGeo Cassandra admin, I know it is a fickle
>> beast. Having also spent a good amount of time at StumbleUpon and Mozilla
>> (and now Riot Games) I also see first-hand that HBase is far more stable
>> -- dare I say it? -- operationally more simple.
>> So okay, HBase is "harder to set up" if following a step-by-step guide on a
>> wiki is "hard," but it's FAR easier to administer. Cassandra is rife
>> cascading cluster failure scenarios. I would not recommend running
>> in a highly-available high-volume data scenario, but don't hesitate to do