Riak ring size

John Kavanagh jkavanagh at zendesk.com
Thu Oct 3 13:46:45 EDT 2013


Hi Sean ,

What would the perform issues be with setting a ring size to 1024 (instead of 128 or 256) on a 6 node cluster? 

I can see the possibility of memory overflow (which is not a high concern on a 128G machine ) , but other than that , are there any additional concerns (with Bitcask)  ? 

I'm trying to understand if there is a significant performance degradation with a value of 1024 versus future proofing growth.

Cheers,

John 

On 3 Oct 2013, at 16:33, Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> Our rule-of-thumb is 8-64 partitions per physical node, so a good starting point for a 6-node cluster would be 128 or 256. 256 will let you expand up to about 30 nodes without needing a ring resize.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM, John Kavanagh <john at kavanista.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm trying to understand the optimal ring size / vnode config for a 6 node Riak cluster, which will most likely expand to many more nodes over time .  Does everyone bump from the default of 64 to 1024 to facilitate future growth ?  I can provide more detailed capacity metrics off list if necessary.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
> Software Engineer
> Basho Technologies, Inc.
> http://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/20131003/a254ba17/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list