On 4/12/08, Nathan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dormando, > > The most intense performance hits for us have come from losing storage > nodes and the resulting rebalance operations putting a lot of > read/write load on the tables. Worst case we've seen was almost 20 > hours of thrashing. Not really user-affecting but it did peg a lot of > ops charts. > > We're far from optimal - using UTF-8 collations/charsets which seems > to unconditionally add a great deal of overhead to index sizes. Our
maybe i'm missing something - why do we need utf-8 if none of the filenames are going to be utf-8? that could be a decent savings right there. > initial bring-up was on a clean debian box so we went with MyISAM, > which does have its problems - index corruption, O(n) repairs, ugh. > Functional but non-optimal. Good point about the optimize table > routine, we probably haven't done that for a while. I wonder how CouchDB or something like that would work as a backend. It might possibly be able to replace MogileFS completely, if I understood a presentation correctly. They said it could store documents of "any size" but I have no clue how efficient etc. I just like CouchDB because it was designed from the beginning for automatic replication, self-healing, etc.
