Riak on SAN

Pedram Nimreezi mc at majorcomputing.com
Thu Oct 3 20:45:29 EDT 2013


I consider that the main use case ;p


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Mike Oxford <moxford at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131003/53c121b2/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list