I like Cassandra and I think it's something you should look at hard if what you want is an eventually consistent database because multi-DC and availability are important to the problem you are solving.
The blog post fails to make that case anywhere. I am guessing that is because it is an ad for GCE and not Cassandra.
I know these kinds of benchmarks are necessary to get and keep your widget on the map, but they always annoy me because I know N other ways to arrive at the same or better numbers with a different set of tradeoffs. Demonstrating scale out is not great for differentiation because it says nothing about the total cost or complexity of use.
Why is it that only GCE + Cassandra could have done a million of these particular kind of writes in a cost effective way?
I also feel like they are fudging how elasticity works. It's not instant. Bringing up a cluster of a given size is not the same as adding node at time to a running cluster to arrive at that size and actually receiving full benefit from the additional capacity. From the wording it sounds like the entire cluster was brought up at once.
Overall my beef is that the blog post fails to inform the reader and is mediocre as a benchmark of anything other than GCE. And let's not even start with the complete lack of random reads, does GCE offer SSD instances yet?
The blog post fails to make that case anywhere. I am guessing that is because it is an ad for GCE and not Cassandra.
I know these kinds of benchmarks are necessary to get and keep your widget on the map, but they always annoy me because I know N other ways to arrive at the same or better numbers with a different set of tradeoffs. Demonstrating scale out is not great for differentiation because it says nothing about the total cost or complexity of use.
Why is it that only GCE + Cassandra could have done a million of these particular kind of writes in a cost effective way?
I also feel like they are fudging how elasticity works. It's not instant. Bringing up a cluster of a given size is not the same as adding node at time to a running cluster to arrive at that size and actually receiving full benefit from the additional capacity. From the wording it sounds like the entire cluster was brought up at once.
Overall my beef is that the blog post fails to inform the reader and is mediocre as a benchmark of anything other than GCE. And let's not even start with the complete lack of random reads, does GCE offer SSD instances yet?