Did you have a chance to look at the basho_bench errors? On Feb 23, 2013, at 2:35 AM, Richard Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Kevin, > > I sympathise with R, i'm going to write an installation guide to go on the > site. > > In regards to the error, please paste in the contents of you vm.args file > from the target node > > Thanks > > Richard > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here is the output from one configuration try: >> >> 17:00:08.878 [info] Using http target "172.16.33.138":8098 for worker 2 >> >> 17:00:08.878 [info] Using pb target "172.16.33.138":8087 for worker 2 >> >> 17:00:08.993 [debug] Supervisor basho_bench_sup started >> basho_bench_worker:start_link(basho_bench_worker_2, 2) at pid <0.96.0> >> >> 17:00:08.999 [info] Using http target "172.16.33.107":8098 for worker 3 >> >> 17:00:09.001 [info] Using pb target "172.16.33.107":8087 for worker 3 >> >> 17:00:09.006 [debug] Supervisor basho_bench_sup started >> basho_bench_worker:start_link(basho_bench_worker_3, 3) at pid <0.99.0> >> >> 17:00:09.022 [debug] Supervisor net_sup started erl_epmd:start_link() at pid >> <0.104.0> >> >> 17:00:09.029 [debug] Supervisor net_sup started auth:start_link() at pid >> <0.105.0> >> >> 17:00:09.030 [info] Can't set long node name! >> Please check your configuration >> >> >> 17:00:09.030 [error] Failed to start net_kernel for >> basho_bench_measurement_erlangvm: >> {shutdown,{child,undefined,net_sup_dynamic,{erl_distribution,start_link,[[basho_bench,longnames]]},permanent,1000,supervisor,[erl_distribution]}} >> >> >> There is alot more output but this is the tail end of the output. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: >> >> Hi Kevin, >> >> Always good practise to reply to the mailing list so others can benefit from >> the content >> >> >> basho bench is the best place to start, If you have a working cluster or >> even a working single node, follow the benchmarking guide[0] >> >> >> Please let me see some of the specific errors you're having and we can help >> resolve them. >> >> >> Outside of basho bench, I recommend benchmarking the raw performance of your >> VM, you can do this using a variety of tools like iostat, iperf or a test >> suite like Phoronix test suite, a very comprehensive FOSS tool[1] look at >> the `aio` test >> >> >> I'd also recommend benchmarking each time you make a configuration change to >> really understand how effective that change was >> >> >> [0] http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/cookbooks/Benchmarking/ >> [1] http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/ >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Richard >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Kevin Burton < [email protected]> >> wrote: >> That was my next question. I have tried to get basho_bench to work but so >> far have been unsuccessful. If you have a simple "hello world" sample config >> I would greatly appreciate it. I have tried a bunch of configs in the >> examples directory but get met with one error or another. >> Other than that I have just timed various client driver calls. Mostly random >> reads some writes. >> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Richard Shaw < [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Kevin, >> What kind of benchmarking have you done on your VMs and what did you use ? >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Richard >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Kevin Burton < [email protected]> >> wrote: >> Ok I suspected as much. This will give me more ammo when requesting more >> resources. Thank you. >> Now, back to the original question. Given that the physical hardware is >> taken care of. What parameters are most important when tuning a cluster. >> Again for arguments sake assume the same 4 node cluster with a read-write >> ratio of about 75 percent. >> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Alexander Sicular < [email protected]> wrote: >> >> It can't be said enough times but the number one thing you can do to ensure >> that you are getting true performance (not to mention redundancy) is to use >> different physical hardware for each of your nodes. Under no circumstances >> should you have more than one VM (one logical node in a Riak cluster) on the >> same physical hardware. Also, use multiple >> connections/threads/parallelism/whatever on client side and be sure to hit >> all the nodes in the cluster haproxy roundrobin-esque when writing to Riak. >> Everything else is in the noise. >> >> -Alexander Sicular >> >> @siculars >> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Kevin Burton < [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> There each has about 20-30GB of disk space. They each are a VM so I am not >> sure how to specify the CPU. They all seem to be 64 bit Intel processors but >> I could tell you the clock speed. The network is 1Gb Ethernet. >> >> From: Sean Carey [mailto: [email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:59 PM >> To: Kevin Burton >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Tuning a Riak cluster. >> >> Kevin, >> Disk and CPU, and Network? >> >> >> Sean Carey >> @densone >> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 20:31, Kevin Burton wrote: >> >> I have a cluster of 4 machines (4 Linux VM machines each allocated about 1 >> Gb of memory – yea I know it isn’t a lot). I would like to get some pointers >> on getting the fastest query time possible given these meager resources. >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
