hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Standalone == Dev Only?
Date Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:18:41 GMT
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Rose, Joseph <
Joseph.Rose@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Folks,
> I’m new to HBase (but not new to these sorts of data stores.) I think
> HBase would be a good fit for a project I’m working on, except for one
> thing: the amount of data we’re talking about, here, is far smaller than
> what’s usually recommended for HBase. As I read the docs, though, it seems
> like the main argument against small datasets is replication: HDFS requires
> a bunch of nodes right from the start and that’s overkill for my use.
Why not use an RDBMS then?

> So, what’s the motivation behind labeling standalone HBase deployments
> “dev only”? If all I really need is a table full of keys and all of that
> will fit comfortably in a single node, and if I have my own backup solution
> (literally, backing up the VM on which it’ll run), why bother with HDFS and
> distributed HBase?
> (As an aside, I could go to something like Berkeley DB but then I don’t
> get all the nice coprocessors and filters and so on, not to mention
> cell-level security. Because I work with patient data the latter is
> definitely a huge win.)
What Nick said. Standalone and 'throwaway' are usually found in the same
sentence so little consideration (testing/verification) has been done to
ensure it works well.

That said, it basically works and I know of at least one instance where a
standalone instance is hosting tsdb for a decent-sized cluster.


> Thanks for your help.
> Joseph Rose
> Intelligent Health Laboratory
> Boston Children’s Hospital

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message