m
Our Mission Statement
This is Photoshop's version of Loremer Ipsn gravida nibh vel velit auctoregorie sam alquet.Aenean sollicitudin, lorem quis bibendum auci elit consequat ipsutis sem nibh id elit.
Follow Us
Top
Comparing Fast Data Performance: VoltDB vs Cassandra
10859
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-10859,single-format-standard,mkd-core-1.0,highrise-ver-1.0,,mkd-smooth-page-transitions,mkd-ajax,mkd-grid-1300,mkd-blog-installed,mkd-header-standard,mkd-sticky-header-on-scroll-up,mkd-default-mobile-header,mkd-sticky-up-mobile-header,mkd-dropdown-slide-from-bottom,mkd-dark-header,mkd-header-style-on-scroll,mkd-full-width-wide-menu,mkd-header-standard-in-grid-shadow-disable,mkd-search-dropdown,mkd-side-menu-slide-from-right,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.4,vc_responsive
VoltDB / Benchmarks  / Comparing Fast Data Performance: A comparison of VoltDB and Cassandra Benchmarks

Blog

Comparing Fast Data Performance: A comparison of VoltDB and Cassandra Benchmarks

Introduction

NoSQL databases, such as Apache Cassandra, are often used in operational applications. However, a new breed of databases, such as VoltDB, are revolutionizing the fast data landscape. VoltDB is an in-memory NewSQL transactional database for fast data applications, currently in use by major telcos, financial services, and many other markets.

To display the competitiveness in performance between VoltDB and Cassandra, two separate benchmarks were compared. The first benchmark was published in 2015, and was sponsored by VoltDB. The second was also published in 2015 by End Point, and compared Cassandra against Couchbase, HBase, and MongoDB. This study was commissioned by DataStax, whose main product is powered by Cassandra.

Both of these benchmarks are from 2015. However, there are no reasons to suspect more current versions are less powerful. Both systems have become slightly faster over time, but not significantly so. As such, this comparison is still reasonable.

Benchmark Methodology Comparison

The first benchmark (VoltDB) compared the same system on different hardware, while the second benchmark (Cassandra) compared different systems on the same hardware. Both benchmarks used YCSB workload B, and both looked at costs and operations per second. The full specifications used in this report are as follows.

The Amazon Web Service EC2 Compute Unit (ECU) is referenced a number of times. This is an abstraction of compute power that allows comparisons to be made regardless of the actual hardware involved.

VoltDB ran in 6 AWS c4.8xlarge instances. These are large, compute optimized instances. Amazon’s stated use cases for this instance include ad serving and distributed analytics. Each c4.8xlarge has 4,000Mbps bandwidth, 36 CPUs, 132 ECU, 60 GiGB, and EBS-Only Storage at 1.76 $/hr

Cassandra ran in a system comprising 1 to 32 nodes in i2.xlarge instance(s). These are smaller than c4.8xlarge instances. i2.xlarge is recommended for NoSQL databases, in-memory databases, and analytic workloads. It is worth noting that i2.xlarge has been replaced with i3.xlarge. Each i2.xlarge has 500 Mbps bandwidth, 4 CPUs, 14 ECU, 30.5GiB, and 1x800GB SSD at 0.85 $/hr

Comparing 6 c4.8xlarge VoltDB nodes with 32 i2.xlarge Cassandra nodes, the summary becomes:

VoltDB: 6x c4.8xlarge has 24 Gbps bandwidth, 216 CPUs, 792 ECU, 360 GiGB at 10.56 $/hr

Cassandra: 32x i2.xlarge has 16Gbps bandwidth, 128 CPUs, 448 ECU, 976 GiGB at 27.20 $/hr

While a benchmark using the same exact hardware would be prefered, this configuration is fair for comparing performance relative to hardware. It is worth noting that 6 c4.8xlarge instances are almost 2.5 times cheaper than 32 i2.xlarge instances.

Results

With 6x c4.8xlarge hardware, VoltDB achieved 585,137 operations per second.

With 32x i2.xlarge hardware, Cassandra achieved 227,293 operations per second.

 

Per NodePer CPUPer ECUPer MbpsPer GB MemoryPer $ (AWS costs)
VoltDB97,523 tps2709 t/s73924.4162555,411
Cassandra7103177650714.22338356

There are a number of interesting comparisons to draw regardless of hardware differences.

VoltDB performs 1.72 times more operations per second per Mbps than Cassandra.

Fast data is all about processing data the instant it arrives. As such, doing the most with bandwidth is key to creating successful fast data applications. VoltDB provides more performance with the same amount of bandwidth than Cassandra.

VoltDB performs 1.46 times more operations per second per ECU (EC2 Compute Unit) than Cassandra. Profitable fast data applications require getting the most out of the available hardware. By using Cassandra over VoltDB on the same hardware, some ECU is essentially wasted.

VoltDB performs 6.63 times more operations per second per AWS dollar than Cassandra. When looking at fast data technologies, the cost of running an application can be enormous. The staggering difference in operations per cost further pushes the notion that VoltDB can do more with the same.

“We … would have had to do an index lookup on this row-level transac on-id 80,000 mes in order to guarantee idempotency [with Cassandra]. Now contrast this to 336 lookups in case of VoltDB. So, for every single index-lookup in VoltDB we would have had to do about 238 index lookups in Cassandra or HBase” – Behzad Pirvali, Performance Architect for MaxCDN

Conclusions

VoltDB thoroughly beats Cassandra in this comparison, which more than shows that VoltDB is comparable to Cassandra in terms of performance, if not better. In addition, VoltDB provides more performance per Mbps, per ECU, and per dollar than Cassandra. If you are researching translytical databases, VoltDB should be a part of your evaluation.

To learn more, check out the benchmark report, and stay tuned for more VoltDB benchmarks.