Migration from memcachedb to riak

Edgar Veiga edgarmveiga at gmail.com
Wed Jul 10 05:03:45 EDT 2013


Hi Guido.

Thanks for your answer!

Bitcask it's not an option due to the amount of ram needed.. We would need
a lot more of physical nodes so more money spent...

Instead we're using less machines with SSD disks to improve elevelDB
performance.

Best regards



On 10 July 2013 09:58, Guido Medina <guido.medina at temetra.com> wrote:

>  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:
>
> http://docs.basho.com/riak/1.2.0/tutorials/choosing-a-backend/Bitcask/
> http://docs.basho.com/riak/1.2.0/tutorials/choosing-a-backend/LevelDB/
>
> Or multi, use one as default and then the other for specific buckets:
>
> http://docs.basho.com/riak/1.2.0/tutorials/choosing-a-backend/Multi/
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
>
>
> 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)
>
> HTH,
>
> Guido.
>
> 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.
>
>  Context:
> - 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 client?
>
>  Best regards,
> Edgar Veiga
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing listriak-users at lists.basho.comhttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20130710/e24f56a0/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list