jmeredith at basho.com
Thu May 13 17:11:43 EDT 2010
If it were me I would start off with the simplest set up possible - one
riak node per physical machine. It'll be easier to see what is going on
and reason about performance if there are less moving parts.
For the storage configuration - if you are using innostore then keep one
for disk for logging (or use the drive the o/s is on if it is doing
little else) and create a RAID0 disk out of the remaining disks.
Similar set up for bitcask except you don't need to worry about the log
Try that as a baseline and benchmark it. If it isn't up to the task
then you can explore more complex options.
On 5/13/10 2:57 PM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
> I am thinking about how to possibly replace an existing system that has heavy
> I/O load, low CPU usage, with riak. Its a file storage system, with smallish
> files, a few K normally, but billions of them.
> The architecture, I think, would be one riak node per disk on the hardware,
> and probably run about 16 riak nodes per physical machine. Say I had
> 4 of these machines, which would be 64 riak nodes.
> With something like this, if I set W=3 as a CAP tuning, I would want to make
> sure that at least 2 of those writes where on 2 physically different machines,
> so in case I had a hardware failure, and it took out a physical machine, I could
> still operate with the other 3 machines.
> Is something like this possible with riak?
More information about the riak-users