I ran it on one day (on a sunday) but each workload 4 or 5 times and my hard drive had 150GB. So it could be Amazons fault? :)
Cheers, Maria On 12 August 2011 16:50, Jeremiah Peschka <jeremiah.pesc...@gmail.com> wrote: > One question that pops into my mind is are these numbers averages over 3 or 5 > runs or is this a single run? > > In my experience with EC2, I've run into I/O inconsistencies when I'm using > anything less than 1TB drives and a large instance. There's a lot of > potential for a noisy neighbor to steal I/O or CPU, or memory on the host OS > which will put pressure on all other guests. > --- > Jeremiah Peschka - Founder, Brent Ozar PLF, LLC > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > On Aug 12, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Maria Neise wrote: > >> Hey, >> I am doing some benchmarks with Riak and set up a cluster with 6 >> server using Amazon EC2. On each server I have GB of data. I am using >> Bitcask as backend and the Java-API for my client. I have some >> workloads with different proportion of operations, for example insert, >> read and update. I started a workload with 95% read and 5% update and >> achieved a throughput of 1207 operations/second. When I tried out >> another workload with 100% read I only got 228 ops/sec. But I thought >> Riak would be faster with reads than with updates. I would appreciate >> if you could give me a hint, why Riak achieves a higher throughput >> when doing updates and inserts mixed with reads. >> Thank you in advance. >> Cheers, >> Maria >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
