Riak on SAN

Mike Oxford moxford at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 20:38:46 EDT 2013


One more use-case for backups:  If you're running a big cluster and UserX
makes a bad code deploy which horks a bunch of data ... restore may be the
only option.

It happens.

-mox


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John E. Vincent <
lusis.org+riak-users at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm going to take a competing view here.
>
> SAN is a bit overloaded of a term at this point. Nothing precludes a SAN
> from being performant or having SSDs. Yes the cost is overkill for fiber
> but iSCSI is much more realistic. Alternately you can even do ATAoE.
>
> From a hardware perspective, if I have 5 pizza boxes as riak nodes, I can
> only fit so many disks in them. Meanwhile I can add another shelf to my SAN
> and expand as needed. Additionally backup of a SAN is MUCH easier than
> backup of a riak node itself. It's a snapshot and you're done. Mind you
> nothing precludes you from doing LVM snapshots in the OS but you still need
> to get the data OFF that system for it to be truly backed up.
>
> I love riak and other distributed stores but backing them up is NOT a
> solved problem. Walking all keys, coordinating the take down of all your
> nodes in a given order or whatever your strategy is a serious pain point.
>
> Using a SAN or local disk also doesn't excuse you from watching I/O
> performance. With a SAN I get multiple redundant paths to a block device
> and I don't get that necessarily with local storage.
>
> Just my two bits.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah Peschka <
> jeremiah.peschka at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Could you do it? Sure.
>>
>> Should you do it? No.
>>
>> An advantage of Riak is that you can avoid the cost of SAN storage by
>> getting duplication at the machine level rather than rely on your storage
>> vendor to provide it.
>>
>> Running Riak on a SAN also exposes you to the SAN becoming your
>> bottleneck; you only have so many fiber/iSCSI ports and a fixed number of
>> disks. The risk of storage contention is high, too, so you can run into
>> latency issues that are difficult to diagnose without looking into both
>> Riak as well as the storage system.
>>
>> Keeping cost in mind, too, SAN storage is about 10x the cost of consumer
>> grade SSDs. Not to mention feature licensing and support... The cost
>> comparison isn't favorable.
>>
>> Please note: Even though your vendor calls it a SAN, that doesn't mean
>> it's a SAN.
>>  On Oct 1, 2013 11:08 PM, "Guy Morton" <Guy.Morton at bksv.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Guy Morton
>>> Web Development Manager
>>> Brüel & Kjær EMS
>>>
>>> This e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied and used only by the
>>> intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please contact the
>>> sender immediately by return e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and do
>>> not disclose its contents to any other person.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> riak-users mailing list
>>> riak-users at lists.basho.com
>>> http://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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a433da59/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list