Riak on SAN

Pedram Nimreezi mc at majorcomputing.com
Thu Oct 3 08:54:07 EDT 2013

Not sure what ZFS has to do with snappy compression, as it's a file system
not a compression algorithm..
feature wise, ZFS is quite possibly the most enterprise file system around,
including advanced data corruption prevention and remote backing up..

This would be a viable option in BSD/Solaris environments, at least for
making snapshots.
Might make a nice write up for the Basho blog..

Backups for riak I think require a bit more consideration then file system
snapshot send,
and should include provisions for transferring data to smaller/larger
clusters, transfer
ring ownerships properly, etc.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Guido Medina <guido.medina at temetra.com>wrote:

>  And for ZFS? I wouldn't recommend it, after Riak 1.4 snappy LevelDB
> compression does a nice job, why take the risk of yet another not so
> enterprise ready compression algorithms.
> I could be wrong though,
> Guido.
> On 03/10/13 12:11, Guido Medina wrote:
> 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 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

/* Sincerely
Pedram Nimreezi - Chief Technology Officer  */

// The hardest part of design … is keeping features out. - Donald Norman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20131003/eaa482d5/attachment.html>

More information about the riak-users mailing list