Riak on SAN

Guido Medina guido.medina at temetra.com
Thu Oct 3 07:11:24 EDT 2013


I have heard some SAN's horrors stories too, Riak nodes are so cheap 
that I don't see the point in even having any mirror on the node, here 
my points:

 1. Erlang interprocess communication brings some network usage, why yet
    another network usage on replicating the data? If the whole idea of
    Riak is have your data replicated in different nodes.
 2. If a node goes down or die for whatever reason, bring up another
    node and rebuild it.
 3. If you want to really replicate your cluster Riak offers the
    enterprise replication which I'm quite sure will be less expensive
    than a SAN and will warranty to have your cluster ready to go
    somewhere else as a backup.
 4. I would even go further, SSDs are so cheap and Riak nodes are so
    cheap now adays that I would even build a cluster using RAID 0 or
    RAID 5 SSDs (yes, no mirror with RAID 1, if too afraid, RAID 5),
    that will have a great impact on performance. Again, if something
    goes wrong with 1 node, refer to point 2.

SANs and all those "legacy" backup and replication IMHO are meant for 
other products, like an Oracle money eater DB server.

HTH,

Guido.

On 03/10/13 12:00, Brian Akins wrote:
> So, call me naive, but couldn't ZFS be used as Heinze suggested?
>
> I have some SAN horror stories - both operationally and from an 
> economic perspective.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131003/0b4669dd/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list