You'll want to run protobufs if you're looking to optimize your response time; HTTP sockets (even to localhost) will require much more overhead and time. Even better would be unix sockets if they're available, and you can bypass the whole TCP stack.
I would go A over B. Less thrash, more control, better ACL/security but it is slightly slower (probably a few ms per request.) How optimized do you care about? Is an extra 100ms (random number) too much to give up? -mox On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM, O'Brien-Strain, Eamonn <eamonn.obrien-str...@hp.com> wrote: > I am contemplating two different architectures for deploying Riak nodes and > web servers. > > Option A: Riak nodes are in their own cluster of dedicated machines behind a > load balancer. Web servers talk to the Riak nodes via the load balancer. > (See diagram http://eamonn.org/i/riak-arch-A.png ) > > Option B: Each web server machine also has a Riak node, and there are also > some Riak-only machines. Each web server only talks to its own localhost > Riak node. (See diagram http://eamonn.org/i/riak-arch-B.png ) > > > All machines will deployed as elastic cloud instances. I will want to spin > up and spin down instances, particularly the web servers, as demand varies. > Both load balancers are non-sticky. Web servers are currently talking to > Riak via HTTP (though might change that to protocol buffers in the future). > Currently Riak is configured with the default options. > > Here is my thinking of the comparative advantages: > > Option A: > > - Better for security, because can lock down the Riak load balancer to only > open a single port and only for connections from the web servers. > - Less churn for Riak of nodes entering and leaving the Riak cluster (as web > servers spin up and down) > - More flexibility in scaling storage and web tiers independently of each > other > > Option B: > > - Faster localhost connection from web server to Riak > > I think availability is similar for the two options. > > The web server response time is the primary metric I want to optimize. Most > web server requests will cause several requests to Riak. > > What other factors should I take into account? What measurements could I > make to help me decide between the architectures? Are there other > architectures I should consider? Should I add memcached? Does anyone have any > experiences they could share in deploying such systems? > > Thanks. > __ > Eamonn > > _______________________________________________ > 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
