Achieving 100% consitency
jeremiah.peschka at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 15:33:16 EDT 2011
That's the advice I usually give and the exact same reasons I give it.
In an off-list email (as Jonathan knows), I equated it to saying "You should never do RDBMS development without a big enterprise grade server with $500k of SAN behind it." I typically say to build a dev environment that is as close to production as will give you production-like performance. Putting 3 nodes on my crappy stock laptop HDD isn't going to give me anything remotely like a production environment (well… there is always EC2 performance).
We see these questions a lot on the list and I don't feel that telling clients "Well, it's gonna suck until you get it into production" isn't the best possible answer. A lot of people seem to be developing on 3-node clusters made out of Mac Minis, HP micro servers, and EC2; but even more people seem to be developing on laptops and wondering why they're seeing horrible performance.
Jeremiah Peschka - Founder, Brent Ozar PLF, LLC
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Jonathan Langevin wrote:
> Agreed, if your intention is to grow the existing single-node instance into a multi-node cluster, then yes, that's a problem.
> For our own development environment, we run a single-node instance for our current stage of development, then once our app is more stable, we'll drop that single-node instance and create a proper 3+ node cluster for a dev environment that will look closer to the final production setup.
> Jonathan Langevin
> Systems Administrator
> Loom Inc.
> Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - jlangevin at loomlearning.com - www.loomlearning.com - Skype: intel352
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Scott Lystig Fritchie <fritchie at snookles.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Langevin <jlangevin at loomlearning.com> wrote:
> jl> Even for development-purposes only? Otherwise it seems data would be
> jl> written n times to the same machine, which is needless in a dev
> jl> environment with low storage specs...
> ... which would be true until the 1-node cluster grows to a 2-node or
> N-node cluster. Changing the N value of a key that already exists,
> especially where N is increasing relative to its old value, creates many
> different kinds of unpleasantness.
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
More information about the riak-users