Everybody feel free to steal from my mail to his/her heart's content :-).
At the very least its now available in the mailing list archive for easy
reference
(http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2011-May/004292.html).
I just hope my use of HTML formatting made it through in a readable state.
Am 25.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Jonathan Langevin:
That was one hell of a response. You need to post that as a Wiki
article or such, after all that work :-O*
<http://www.loomlearning.com/>
*/
/*Jonathan Langevin*/
Systems Administrator
*Loom Inc.*
Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> - www.loomlearning.com
<http://www.loomlearning.com/> - Skype: intel352
/*
*
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Nico Meyer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I think, I can explain at least a big chunk of the difference in
RAM and disk consumption you see.
Let start with RAM. I could of course be wrong here, but I believe
the /'static bitcask per key overhead/' is just plainly too small.
Let me explain why.
The bitcask_keydir_entry struct for each entry looks like this:
[snip]
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
