I've seen users show concern of Bitcask's space usage overhead. How does that compare against LevelDB? Would LevelDB be a good solution for log data?
If using a Level backend, what advantages do we lose of Bitcask? ls replication & availability an issue at all? * <http://www.loomlearning.com/> Jonathan Langevin Systems Administrator Loom Inc. Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - jlange...@loomlearning.com - www.loomlearning.com - Skype: intel352 * On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David Smith <diz...@basho.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Will Moss <wm...@bu.mp> wrote: > > This is very cool--glad you guys decided to bundle this in. The linked > post > > and the Google Code page both suggest that it will have a much more > > efficient on-disk representation than InnoDB, do you have an specific > > numbers on overhead per key? > > I don't think we've officially measured it; in my own tests, it's > quite small. A 10GB dataset was within a few MB of what I expected. > Certainly FAR more efficient than Inno (where I've seen 2-3x). > > D. > > -- > Dave Smith > Director, Engineering > Basho Technologies, Inc. > diz...@basho.com > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
