Uruka, What does your load testing script look like? If you post the code somewhere, I'll take a look to see if any obvious stumbling block comes to mind. I agree, that's way lower than you should be getting with Riak on that hardware.
Dmitri On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Uruka Dark <[email protected]> wrote: > As I told, maybe I'm trying to use Riak in an improperly way, but this is > a kind of requirement for me and I expected to be able to do it with Riak. > I'm looking for a "NoSQL" solution and after try out a few of them, I think > that I have two great solutions, Couchbase and Riak. To me, Riak seems to > be much more mature, and this is my primary option, but, as I told, I can > achieve some numbers with Couchbase that I can't with Riak. Given the > maturity of Riak, I'm pretty sure that this is a configuration problem, but > I need some help to find out how to solve it. If any one could help me with > it, I'll be thankful. I don't want to give up on Riak so fast. > Thank you. > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Uruka Dark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I understand. >> To eliminate any problems related to Bitcask, I changed to Memory backend >> and now I can store roughly 80 objs/sec. This speed can be achieved hitting >> just one of them. >> I tried to hit both of them at same time, and the speed drops to roughly >> 68 objs/sec (each). >> Do you have any suggestion about it? >> >> Thank you. >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Sebastian Cohnen < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You should hit both servers and not just with a concurrency level of 1. >>> >>> There are many more factors to consider, but these are highly dependent >>> on your actual problem (not just a simple benchmark). Just to name a few: >>> bitcask settings ( >>> http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/tutorials/choosing-a-backend/Bitcask/#Tuning-Bitcask), >>> w-quorum, HTTP vs ProtoBuf, ring_creation_size, ... >>> >>> On 02.11.2012, at 13:15, Uruka Dark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm hitting just one of them. >>> At the beginning I tried to use the default settings (n_val = 3), then I >>> started to create the bucket with n_val = 2. I've tested a lot of >>> combinations to w, but I could not see any substantial improvement. >>> If you have any suggestion, please, let me know. I can do any test. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Sebastian Cohnen < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> What level of concurrency are you using in your test setup? Are you >>>> hitting both servers with your test? What is your n_val and w? >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02.11.2012, at 03:42, Uruka Dark <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > I'm new here and with Riak. If I do something wrong, please, let me >>>> know. >>>> > >>>> > I've made a Riak cluster with two identical machines: Intel core i3 >>>> 2.3GHz 4GB RAM 1TB HD. They are connected by a gigabit ethernet network. >>>> Everything is working fine. I'm using a Bitcask backend. >>>> > >>>> > I've made a PHP script to do a performance test and find out how fast >>>> Riak can be with these settings. What my script is doing is: to store 10000 >>>> objects with a 10K long data (string of 10240 x 'A'), and calculating how >>>> many objects it stores per second. >>>> > >>>> > Right now, using Bitcask backend, it can store roughly 68 objects per >>>> second. It seems to be a small number to me, but I don't know too much >>>> about Riak. I've tested the same script on a Couchbase cluster, with the >>>> same settings, and it could store roughly 1000 objects per second. >>>> Obviously, on Couchbase test, the data is not sent to non-volatile media >>>> immediately. Data is kept in memory to acknowledge the reception as fast as >>>> possible, and is sent to non-volatile media in background. I want Riak to >>>> behave the same way to increase the "writing speed", but I don't know how >>>> to do it or if it is possible. May be I'm trying to do something completely >>>> out of the purpose of Riak. >>>> > >>>> > I've tested Riak with Memory backend too, but it achieved only 72 >>>> objects per second. I expected it to work faster with Memory backend, cause >>>> there is no disk activity involved on it, but the final result is not that >>>> high. >>>> > >>>> > Again, I don't know if I'm trying to do something inappropriate. I >>>> think I'm missing something. >>>> > Is there any way to do it? >>>> > >>>> > If I could not make myself clear, please, let me know. >>>> > Thank you. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
