Is Riak suitable for s small-record write-intensive billion-records application?
jared at basho.com
Mon Oct 22 10:00:47 EDT 2012
If anyone would like a comparison of Riak to Couchbase with citations for
each bullet point, we took a lot of time to make sure our comparisons page
is objective and fact based.
is the one for Riak v. Couchbase.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Joshua Muzaaya <joshmuza at gmail.com>wrote:
>> This is not meant to down-market Riak, but you mentioned Billions of
>> records. Riak storage is known to have a few issues as data grows to
>> billions. However, Couchbase 2.0 has been kinda battle tested, using SQLite
>> at the storage layer.
> I'm not sure how you are backing up this assertion (citation?). We have
> customers storing terabytes of data with billions of records (using
> LevelDB). SQLite as the storage engine does not necessarily make Couchbase
> more stable or battle-tested, just better known among the wider community.
> On the other hand, we have spent the last eighteen months, in collaboration
> with the original authors at Google, hardening and improving the
> performance of LevelDB to support large deployments, and it now performs
> very well (although we still can do better).
> I'm not saying that the OP should not consider Couchbase, but either
> product is going to require more than just a casual knowledge of ops to
> deploy, manage and maintain. Clustered datastores are not for the
> faint-of-heart, so if the OP can do it in a local SQL database, then he
> Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
> Software Engineer
> Basho Technologies, Inc.
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the riak-users