I’ve run into a few issues along the line, never lost data so. It requires more love and care then riak and things happen less automatic. everything involving riak gives me a warm and happy feeling that I can trust what goes on, Leo is not just there yet but for me the order of magnitude in speed difference had a bigger impact. When you store +50GB vm backups at 5MB/s it’s no fun for getting around that I was willing to accept that I’ve to keep a closer eye on the system then I would probably have with riakcs, despite that having different systems compete makes everyone working harder to improve ;P --- Cheers, Heinz Nikolaus Gies [email protected]
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 2:36, Toby Corkindale <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, that's interesting to hear. > How have you been finding the stability and reliability to be with > leofs, over time? > > > I still wish I could just get our Riak CS cluster performing better; > it just seems so unreasonably slow at the moment, that I suspect > there's *something* holding it back. I can build a test cluster on my > desktop, and even with five virtual riak nodes on the one machine, I > still see 20-40x the performance, so it seems bizarre that dedicated > bare-metal servers would be so slow. (Although obviously there's much > more network latency between real machines, than a virtual cluster on > one desktop; and they have a lot more data in their bitcask databases) > > > However I've tried fiddling with all the Riak and Riak CS options.. > ethtool offloads.. mount options.. sysctls.. MTU sizes.. even dropping > single nodes out of the cluster one at a time in case they were > somehow at fault.. seems like the only performance changes I can make > are negative. > > We're still double the speed of the original poster in this thread, > but.. that isn't saying much. > > Toby > > > On 26 November 2014 at 06:44, Heinz Nikolaus Gies <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you’re evaluating RiakCS vs. Ceph you might want to toss LeoFS[1] in the >> mix and give it a run. Just as RiakCS it is a dynamo inspired system build >> in Erlang and comes with the same advantages and disadvantages. But unlike >> RiakCS it is pretty much exclusive a Object Store so can take a few >> different optimizations for this kind of work that might not be possible in >> a general purpose database as Riak (this is my personal guess not a research >> founded conclusion). The team is (much) smaller then bash (obviously) but >> they’re a very nice and responsive bunch. I ended up using it as a s3 >> backend for Project-FiFo due to it’s performance characteristics. With >> current releases I manage to get a sigle file upload speed of ~1.2GB/s using >> gof3r[2] (this might be a client limitation but I haven’t had time to >> investigate the details). >> >> [1] http://leo-project.net/leofs/ >> [2] https://github.com/rlmcpherson/s3gof3r/tree/master/gof3r >> --- >> Cheers, >> Heinz Nikolaus Gies >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> On Nov 25, 2014, at 6:08, Toby Corkindale <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I wondered if you managed to significantly improve your Riak CS >> performance, or not? >> >> I just ask as we've been getting not-dissimilar performance out of >> Riak CS too (4-5 mbyte/sec max per client, on bare metal hardware), >> for quite a long time. (I swear it was faster originally, when there >> was a lot less data in the whole system.) >> This is after applying all the tweaks available -- networking stack, >> filesystem mount options, assorted Erlang vm.args, and increased put >> concurrency/buffer options. >> >> We put up with it because it's been just-about sufficient enough for >> our needs and Riak CS has been reliable and easy to administer -- but >> it's becoming more of an issue, and so I'm curious to know if other >> people *do* manage to achieve *good* per-client speeds out of Riak CS >> or if this is just how things always are? >> And we're way off the mark, maybe we can find out why.. >> >> Details of our setup: >> 6 node cluster. RIng size of 64. >> Riak 1.4.10 >> Riak CS 1.5.2 >> (installed from official Basho repos) >> >> Tests conducted using both multi-part and non-multi-part upload mode; >> performance is similar with both. Tested against cluster when very >> lightly loaded. >> For the sake of testing, a 100M file is being used, that contains >> random (hard to compress) data. >> >> Cheers, >> Toby >> >> On 8 November 2014 at 01:41, David Meekin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I’ve setup a test 4 node RiakCS cluster on HP BL460c hardware and I can’t >> seem to get S3 upload speeds above 2MB/s >> I’m connecting direct to RiackCS on one of the nodes so there is no load >> balancing software in place. >> I have also installed s3cmd locally onto one of the nodes and the speeds >> locally are the same. >> These 4 nodes also run a test CEPH cluster with RadosGW and s3 uploads to >> CEPH achieve 125MB/s >> Any help would be appreciated as I’m currently evaluating both CEPH and >> RiakCS. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> riak-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >> >> > > > > -- > Turning and turning in the widening gyre > The falcon cannot hear the falconer > Things fall apart; the center cannot hold > Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
