And for ZFS? I wouldn't recommend it, after Riak 1.4 snappy LevelDB
compression does a nice job, why take the risk of yet another not so
enterprise ready compression algorithms.
I could be wrong though,
Guido.
On 03/10/13 12:11, Guido Medina wrote:
I have heard some SAN's horrors stories too, Riak nodes are so cheap
that I don't see the point in even having any mirror on the node, here
my points:
1. Erlang interprocess communication brings some network usage, why
yet another network usage on replicating the data? If the whole
idea of Riak is have your data replicated in different nodes.
2. If a node goes down or die for whatever reason, bring up another
node and rebuild it.
3. If you want to really replicate your cluster Riak offers the
enterprise replication which I'm quite sure will be less expensive
than a SAN and will warranty to have your cluster ready to go
somewhere else as a backup.
4. I would even go further, SSDs are so cheap and Riak nodes are so
cheap now adays that I would even build a cluster using RAID 0 or
RAID 5 SSDs (yes, no mirror with RAID 1, if too afraid, RAID 5),
that will have a great impact on performance. Again, if something
goes wrong with 1 node, refer to point 2.
SANs and all those "legacy" backup and replication IMHO are meant for
other products, like an Oracle money eater DB server.
HTH,
Guido.
On 03/10/13 12:00, Brian Akins wrote:
So, call me naive, but couldn't ZFS be used as Heinze suggested?
I have some SAN horror stories - both operationally and from an
economic perspective.
_______________________________________________
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
