Mongodb and Cassandra data storing mechanism

Question

I have been reading about MongoDB and Cassandra. MongoDB is a master/slave where as Cassandra is masterless (all nodes are equal). My doubt is about how the data is stored in these both.

Let's say a user is writing a request to MongoDB(a cluster with master and different slaves each in a separate machine). This means the master will decide(or through some application implementation) to which slave this update should be written to . That is same data will not be available in all the nodes in MongoDB. Each node size may vary. Am i right ? Also when queried will the master know to which node this request should be sent ?

In the case of cassandra, the same data will be written to all the nodes ie) effectively if one node size is 10GB, then the other nodes size is also 10GB. Because if only this is the case, then when one node fails, the user will not lose any data by querying in another node. Am i right here ? If I am right, the same data is available in all the nodes, then what is the advantage of using map/reduce function in Cassandra ? If I am wrong, then how availability is maintained in Cassandra since the same data will not be available in the other node ?

I was searching in stackoverflow about MongoDB vs cassandra and have read about some 10 posts but my questions could not be cleared with the answers in those posts. Please clear my doubts and If I had assumed wrongly, also correct me.

Answer 1

Regarding MongoDB, yep you're right, there is only one primary.

Any secondary can become primary as long as everything is in sync as this will mean the secondary has all the data. Each node doesn't have to be the same on-disk size and this can vary depending on when the replication was done, however, they do have the same data (as long as they're in sync).

I don't know much about Cassandra, sorry!

Answer 2

I've written a thesis about NoSQL stores and therefor I hope that I remember the most parts correctly for Cassandra:

Cassandra is a mixture of Amazon Dynamo, from which it inherit the replication and sharding, and Googles BigTable from which it got the datamodel. So Cassandra basically shards your data, while keeping copies of it on other nodes. Let's have a five node cluster, with nodes called A to E. Your keys are hashed to the keyring through consistent hashing, where continuous areas of your keyring are stored on a given node. So if we have a value range from 1 to 100, per default each node will get 1/5 of the ring. A will range from [1,20), B from [20,40) and so on.
An important Concept for Dynamo is the triple (R,W,N) which tells how many nodes have to read, write, and keep a given value.
Per default you have 3 (N) copies of your data, which is stored on the primary node and two following nodes, which hold backups. When I remember it right from the Dynamo paper your writes go per Default to the first W nodes of your N copies, the other nodes are updated through an Gossip Protocol eventually.
As long as everything is going fine you'll get consistent results, if your primary node is down for some time another node takes your data, through a hinted hand-off. Once the primary comes back your data will be merged, or tried to be merged (this part I can't really remember but check those Vector Clocks which are used to tell the update history). So if not too big parts of your cluster go down, you'll have a consistent view on your data. If bigger parts of your node are down or you request from only a small parts of your copies you may see inconsistencies, which (may) eventually be consistent.
Hope that helped, I can highly recommend to read those original papers about Amazon Dynamo and Google BigTable, but I think you're mostly interested in Amazon Dynamo. Additionally this post from Werner Vogels may come handy as well.
As for the sharding size I think that those can vary depending on your machine and how hot given areas of your keyring are.

Answer 3

Cassandra does not, typically, keep all data on all nodes. As you suggest, this would defeat some of the advantages offered by it's distributed data model (in particular fast writes would be hampered). The amount of replication desired (how many nodes should keep copies of your data) is customizable by the client at write time. As such, you can set it up to replicate across all nodes, or just keep your data at a single node with no replication. It's up to you. The specific node(s) to which the data gets written is determined by the hash value of the key. Each node is assigned a range of hash values it will store, so when you go to look up a value, again the key is hashed and that indicates on which node to find the data.