Migration from memcachedb to riak
guido.medina at temetra.com
Wed Jul 10 04:58:57 EDT 2013
Well, I rushed my answer before, if you want performance, you probably
want Bitcask, if you want compression then LevelDB, the following links
should help you decide better:
Or multi, use one as default and then the other for specific buckets:
On 10/07/13 09:53, Guido Medina wrote:
> Then you are better off with Bitcask, that will be the fastest in your
> case (no 2i, no searches, no M/R)
> On 10/07/13 09:49, Edgar Veiga wrote:
>> Hello all!
>> I have a couple of questions that I would like to address all of you
>> guys, in order to start this migration the best as possible.
>> - I'm responsible for the migration of a pure key/value store that
>> for now is being stored on memcacheDB.
>> - We're serializing php objects and storing them.
>> - The total size occupied it's ~2TB.
>> - The idea it's to migrate this data to a riak cluster with elevelDB
>> backend (starting with 6 nodes, 256 partitions. This thing is scaling
>> very fast).
>> - We only need to access the information by key. *We won't need
>> neither map/reduces, searches or secondary indexes*. It's a pure
>> key/value store!
>> My questions are:
>> - Do you have any riak fine tunning tip regarding this use case (due
>> to the fact that we will only use the key/value capabilities of riak)?
>> - It's expected that those 2TB would be reduced due to the levelDB
>> compression. Do you think we should compress our objects to on the
>> Best regards,
>> Edgar Veiga
>> riak-users mailing list
>> riak-users at lists.basho.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the riak-users