On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Mark Phillips <m...@basho.com> wrote:
> Update: I'm working on rolling this thread into a blog post with a summary > of all these suggestions and what we're doing to address them in the short > and long term. This will be out today with any luck. > > Thanks for this. Never have I been so excited by people pointing out our > shortcomings. :) > > As promised, here's the blog post: http://www.themarkphillips.com/2012/04/24/riak-adoption-we-have-some-work-to-do.html It's a bit longwinded but I had no choice. There was a lot to cover. Back to work. :) Mark > Mark > > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Gideon de Kok <gideo...@me.com> wrote: >> > Op zaterdag 21 april 2012, om 19:50 heeft Les Mikesell het volgende >> > geschreven: >> > >> > Is there 'something like redis' that doesn't introduce a single point >> > of failure? And a completely different set of administrative >> > concepts? >> > >> > A different, Riak only, approach is to safe the sorted keys in a Riak >> > object: >> > - You could have a sorted list of keys in a array in a user object for >> > instance. >> >> That seems to assume that a single client has all the keys at once. >> What if your clients and the data sources are distributed as well? >> And if that could work reliably from a set of clients, why can't the >> server side do it? >> >> -- >> Les Mikesell >> lesmikes...@gmail.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
