Riak ring size
sean at basho.com
Thu Oct 3 13:51:34 EDT 2013
Your main concern with greater numbers of partitions is contention for IO
(and CPU time for the vnodes to process requests). Consider that with 6
nodes, you will have 170(+/- 1) partitions running on each physical node.
That's *at least* 170 files open, all scribbling to and reading from disk.
You might get away with 512, but my experience tells me to be wary of that
for small clusters. I think unless you're doing big-web-property-level
traffic you won't need to grow your cluster as large as you think,
especially with machines that beefy.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM, John Kavanagh <jkavanagh at zendesk.com>wrote:
> 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.
> 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
>> riak-users mailing list
>> riak-users at lists.basho.com
> Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
> Software Engineer
> Basho Technologies, Inc.
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
Sean Cribbs <sean at basho.com>
Basho Technologies, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the riak-users