Sounds great. If you are performing a rolling upgrade make sure to modify/add vnode_vclocks after all nodes have transitioned to 1.0 [1].
[1]: http://wiki.basho.com/Rolling-Upgrades.html On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Gordon Tillman <[email protected]> wrote: > Morning Ryan, > > Hey thanks for the info. I'm testing with 1.0 right now (great job with > that by the way) and I hope to be able to switch our deployment package over > to 1.0 soon. > > As always I appreciate your time and trouble. > > --gordon > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:02 , Ryan Zezeski wrote: > > Gordon, > > It's worth pointing out that in 1.0 this should be greatly improved because > now we have changed vclock behavior in relation to PUTs [1]. Essentially, > client id now comes from the vnode, not externally, which leads to > smaller/static vclock sizes even in the face of frequent updates. > > I can't say with complete certainty that reducing the small/big vclock > won't change your perf characteristics but I will say it is probably better > to have smaller vclocks which in turn leads to smaller objects. Since > pruning will happen more often I would imagine your PUT latencies could > potentially go up a little. The best way to know is to measure. > > Another option is setting last_write_wins to true but this should only be > used as a last effort and only if you truly don't care about siblings [2]. > > -Ryan > > [1]: Checkout the section titled "Get/Put Improvements" in the release > notes. https://github.com/basho/riak/blob/riak-1.0.0/RELEASE-NOTES.org > > [2]: http://wiki.basho.com/Vector-Clocks.html#Siblings > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Gordon Tillman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Morning All, >> >> I have noticed that with the default vclock settings the size of the >> X-Riak-Vclock header gets really big really fast for certain objects that >> are updated frequently. I am considering setting small_vclock to 4 and >> big_vclock to 16 instead of the default values of 10 and 50, respectivly. >> >> I know that that are various performance optimizations that are based upon >> certain default bucket settings and was wondering if this change would >> adversely affect any of those. >> >> Many thanks! >> >> --gordon tillman >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
