Efficiency of RIAK

Alexander Sicular siculars at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 16:51:13 EDT 2012


It really is not an apples to apples comparison. Additionally, there was a discussion recently about small values in Riak:

http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2012-October/009887.html

-Alexander Sicular

@siculars

On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Denis wrote:

> RIAK does not make sense to compare with elevelDB, objective was to assess
> the cost of organizing the cluster.
> I was surprised by the difference in performance. I expected to order 20 000
> put / sec. Perhaps, RIAK configured incorrect?
> With these results, you need at least 4 servers with RIAK to replace one
> server elevelDB. RIAK positioned as a high-performance cluster, I think it
> is contrary to the speed of one node = 6636 put/sec with a record size of 55
> bytes.
> 
> I'm wrong?
> 
> This is not idle curiosity, I hoped to use it in one of my projects. But the
> cost of the required number of servers will be too big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/Efficiency-of-RIAK-tp4025765p4025785.html
> Sent from the Riak Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20121025/95cba56a/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list