Using Riak as cache layer
sean at basho.com
Mon Oct 1 10:48:36 EDT 2012
Yes, it will drop the oldest item until the size is less than max_memory.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Kogan <pavel.kogan at cortica.com> wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> Thanks for quick reply. Your answers helped me a lot.
> I just need small clarification.
> Memory backend has two parameters: (a) max_memory (b) ttl.
> If I use only max_memory (without using ttl) and node reaches its
> RAM limit would it drop oldest records upon new request as you said (or I
> must set also ttl for that)?
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com> wrote:
>> In contrast to Yuri's claim, a number of groups have used Riak
>> successfully as a cache. Yes, it won't be as fast as Membase, but it
>> might be fast enough for your purposes. (This presentation by
>> Posterous might interest you:
>> 1) Bitcask is going to be very fast. If your data never really exceeds
>> RAM, Bitcask will give you near-RAM speeds with the assurance that
>> your cache will also persist to disk. Normal Bitcask caveats apply
>> here, including the "keys-must-fit-in-RAM" one.
>> 2) For most persistent use-cases it is recommended to have > 3 nodes,
>> preferably 5 or more. For a cache, the guarantees of per-key
>> availability are usually more lax, so perhaps < 3 nodes is ok. It's
>> better to set up your desired configuration, run some benchmarks and
>> smoke-tests while stopping or killing nodes.
>> 3) If you are using the "memory" backend, you can configure this
>> behavior. If you do not configure it, the default is to use up to as
>> much memory as the operating system will allow it -- beyond that
>> limit, the Riak node will exit and leave a crash dump. If you
>> configure a size or TTL limit, then the memory backend will drop the
>> oldest item from its storage. More information on how to configure it
>> is here: http://wiki.basho.com/Memory.html
>> I hope that helps!
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Yuri Lukyanov <snaky at aboutecho.com> wrote:
>> > I suggest that you use http://www.couchbase.com/ (ex-membase) instead
>> > as a cache layer. It's faster but less reliable than riak, which is ok
>> > for cache layer.
>> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Kogan <pavel.kogan at cortica.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi all experts,
>> >> I want to use Riak for caching and have few questions:
>> >> 1) How faster is using memory back-end over bitcask back-end (on SSD)?
>> >> 2) If throughput satisfying, is there any reason to use more than two
>> >> nodes?
>> >> 3) When my memory reaches preset limit (lets say 4Gb) what is going to
>> >> happen
>> >> on inserting the next element?
>> >> a) Random element will be dropped.
>> >> b) Oldest element will be dropped.
>> >> c) Next element insert will fail.
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Pavel
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> riak-users mailing list
>> >> riak-users at lists.basho.com
>> >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > riak-users mailing list
>> > riak-users at lists.basho.com
>> > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>> Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
>> Software Engineer
>> Basho Technologies, Inc.
Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
Basho Technologies, Inc.
More information about the riak-users