Jared - thanks for the links. I'm in the same boat with Brady with weighing deployment options in AWS.
Jeremiah - isn't EBS the only option once your data starts reaching into the hundreds-of-gigs? Dave On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Jared Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to what Jeremiah said, putting a 4 or 5 node cluster in each US West > and US East using MDC between them would be the optimum solution. I'm also > not buying consistent latencies between AZ's, but I've also not tested it > personally in a production environment. We have many riak-users members on > AWS, so hopefully more experienced people will chime in. > > If you haven't seen them already, here's what I have in my "Riak on AWS" > bookmark folder: > > http://media.amazonwebservices.com/AWS_NoSQL_Riak.pdf > http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/ops/tuning/aws/ > http://basho.com/riak-on-aws-deployment-options/ > > -Jared > > > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Jeremiah Peschka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd be wary of using EBS backed nodes for Riak - with only a single >> ethernet connection, it wil be very easy to saturate the max of 1000mbps >> available in a single AWS NIC (unless you're using cluster compute >> instances). I'd be more worried about temporarily losing contact with a >> node through network saturation than through AZ failure, truthfully. >> >> The beauty of Riak is that a node can drop and you can replace it with >> minimal fuss. Use that to your advantage and make every node in the cluster >> disposable. >> >> As far as doubling up in one AZ goes - if you're worried about AZ >> failure, you should treat each AZ as a separate data center and design your >> failure scenarios accordingly. Yes, Amazon say you should put one Riak node >> in each AZ; I'm not buying that. With no guarantee around latency, and no >> control around between DCs, you need to be very careful how much of that >> latency you're willing to introduce into your application. >> >> Were I in your position, I'd stand up a 5 node cluster in US-WEST-2 and >> be done with it. I'd consider Riak EE for my HA/DR solution once the >> business decides that off-site HA/DR is something it wants/needs. >> >> >> --- >> Jeremiah Peschka - Founder, Brent Ozar Unlimited >> MCITP: SQL Server 2008, MVP >> Cloudera Certified Developer for Apache Hadoop >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Brady Wetherington <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi all - >>> >>> I have some questions about how I want my Riak stuff to work - I've >>> already asked these questions of some Basho people and gotten some answers, >>> but thought I would toss it out into the wider world to see what you all >>> have to say, too: >>> >>> First off - I know 5 instances is the "magic number" of instances to >>> have. If I understand the thinking here, it's that at the default >>> redundancy level ('n'?) of 3, it is most likely to start getting me some >>> scaling (e.g., performance > just that of a single node), and yet also have >>> redundancy; whereby I can lose one box and not start to take a performance >>> hit. >>> >>> My question is - I think I can only do 4 in a way that makes sense. I >>> only have 4 AZ's that I can use right now; AWS won't let me boot instances >>> in 1a. My concern is if I try to do 5, I will be "doubling up" in one AZ - >>> and in AWS you're almost as likely to lose an entire AZ as you are a single >>> instance. And so, if I have instances doubled-up in one AZ (let's say >>> us-east-1e), and then I lose 1e, I've now lost two instances. What are the >>> chances that all three of my replicas of some chunk of my data are on those >>> two instances? I know that it's not guaranteed that all replicas are on >>> separate nodes. >>> >>> So is it better for me to ignore the recommendation of 5 nodes, and just >>> do 4? Or to ignore the fact that I might be doubling-up in one AZ? Also, >>> another note. These are designed to be 'durable' nodes, so if one should go >>> down I would expect to bring it back up *with* its data - or, if I >>> couldn't, I would do a force-replace or replace and rebuild it from the >>> other replicas. I'm definitely not doing instance-store. So I don't know if >>> that mitigates my need for a full 5 nodes. I would also consider losing one >>> node to be "degraded" and would probably seek to fix that problem as soon >>> as possible, so I wouldn't expect to be in that situation for long. I would >>> probably tolerate a drop in performance during that time, too. (Not a >>> super-severe one, but 20-30 percent? Sure.) >>> >>> What do you folks think? >>> >>> -B. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
