Unless you changed R for the bucket, the default that ships with Riak is 2. It's actually "n_val / 2 + 1" also known as the quorum <http://wiki.basho.com/Riak-Glossary.html#Quorum>. n_val is 3 by default resulting in R=2.
Eric. On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Matt Savona <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I this test, R=1 (the default). > > Thanks! > > - Matt > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Eric Moritz <[email protected]> wrote: >> When you were doing the reads, did you set the r-value to 1? This >> will speed up reads in a read heavy app because only one node has to >> be in agreement about the object. >> >> Eric. >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Matt Savona <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> My colleagues and I are evaluating Riak as a persistent, replicated K-V >>> store. >>> >>> I have a fairly simple (and not so scientific) test that reads and >>> writes 5000 objects that are 32K in size. I am particularly interested >>> in squeezing every last bit of performance out of Riak in a very >>> read-heavy environment. I want to avoid hitting disk for reads as much >>> as possible; our entire content set is much larger than could ever be >>> stored in RAM, but preferably hot/active objects will remain resident >>> in memory until various conditions may force them to be evicted. While >>> the content set is quite large, the number of active keys represent a >>> very small portion of the data which could easily fit in RAM. >>> >>> I've been running the same test against Riak given various >>> combinations of backends and access protocols (HTTP vs. PB). >>> >>> My numbers can be seen in this screenshot: >>> http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3185/riakperformance.png >>> >>> It is quite evident (and perhaps obvious) that Protocol Buffer >>> performance is noticeably better than HTTP in most cases. >>> >>> What is confusing to me is the performance of purely in-memory >>> backends. Notably, GB Trees and LRU Cache (and even Innostore), at >>> best took 14s to retrieve 5000 32K objects. The exact same test >>> against Membase took just 6s. >>> >>> Perhaps I'm not comparing apples to apples (Riak in-memory versus >>> Membase). Do my tests look reasonable and do the numbers look roughly >>> in-line with expectations? Is there any way to squeeze more juice out >>> of Riak? A purely in-memory/non-persistent backend will not suffice >>> for our ultimate needs, but for testing purposes I'm just trying to >>> see if I can get read performance more in line with what we're seeing >>> with Membase. We love everything about it, but we haven't yet hit the >>> performance we were hoping for. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> - Matt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> riak-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >>> >> > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
