Agreed. I guess it depends on how much IO / CPU is involved.
At least having the option to try on the same box; or close to them would
be good. I wonder how bad performance is if the ES node is remote?
On 14 March 2014 18:18, Alan Santos <asantos(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I would also be interested in seeing this, but co-locating the two implies
similar scale out strategy and/or workload - it's not clear that's the
case.
but yes, from a provisioning pov it does simplify things.
-alan
On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:09 PM, James Strachan <james.strachan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Elias
co-locating ElasticSearch on the same boxes as Cassandra sounds awesome!
Any chance you could post the Cassandra piece? I'd love to try it; as it'd
make provisioning RHQ much simpler with just Cassandra and ES talking to
it; then if feels like there's just a single database to manage.
--
James
-------
Red Hat
Email: jstracha(a)redhat.com
Web:
http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog:
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
--
James
-------
Red Hat
Email: jstracha(a)redhat.com
Web:
http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog:
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration