On 27 Jun 2012, at 12:09, Yousuf Fauzan wrote:
> I used examples/riakc_pb.config
>
> {mode, max}.
>
> {duration, 10}.
>
> {concurrent, 1}.
Try upping this. On my local 3 node cluster with 8gb ram and an old, cheap quad
core per box I'd set concurrency to 10 workers.
>
> {driver, basho_bench_driver_riakc_pb}.
>
> {key_generator, {int_to_bin, {uniform_int, 10000}}}.
>
> {value_generator, {fixed_bin, 10000}}.
>
> {riakc_pb_ips, [{<IP of one of the nodes>}]}.
I add all the IPs here, one entry per node.
>
> {riakc_pb_replies, 1}.
>
> {operations, [{get, 1}, {update, 1}]}.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Russell Brown <russell.br...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2012, at 12:05, Yousuf Fauzan wrote:
>
>> I did use basho bench on my clusters. It should throughput of around 150
>
> Could you share the config you used, please?
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Russell Brown <russell.br...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2012, at 11:50, Yousuf Fauzan wrote:
>>
>>> Its not about the difference in throughput in the two approaches I took.
>>> Rather, the issue is that even 200 writes/sec is a bit on the lower side.
>>> I could be doing something wrong with the configuration because people are
>>> reporting throughputs of 2-3k ops/sec
>>>
>>> If anyone here could guide me in setting up a cluster which would give such
>>> kind of throughput.
>>
>> To get the kind of throughput I use multiple threads / workers. Have you
>> looked at basho_bench[1], it is a simple, reliable tool to benchmark Riak
>> clusters?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Russell
>>
>> [1] Basho Bench - https://github.com/basho/basho_bench and
>> http://wiki.basho.com/Benchmarking.html
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yousuf
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Eric Anderson <ander...@copperegg.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Yousuf Fauzan <yousuffau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I setup a 3 machine riak SM cluster. Each machine used 4GB Ram and riak
>>>> OpenSource SmartMachine Image.
>>>>
>>>> Afterwards I tried loading data by following two methods
>>>> 1. Bash script
>>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>> echo $(date)
>>>> for (( c=1; c<=1000; c++ ))
>>>> do
>>>> curl -s -d 'this is a test' -H "Content-Type: text/plain"
>>>> http://127.0.0.1:8098/buckets/test/keys
>>>> done
>>>> echo $(date)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Python Riak Client
>>>> c=riak.RiakClient("10.112.2.185")
>>>> b=c.bucket("test")
>>>> for i in xrange(10000):o=b.new(str(i), str(i)).store()
>>>>
>>>> For case 1, throughput was 25 writes/sec
>>>> For case 2, throughput was 200 writes/sec
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am making a fundamental mistake somewhere. I tried the above two
>>>> scripts on EC2 clusters too and still got the same performance.
>>>>
>>>> Please, someone help
>>>
>>>
>>> The major difference between these two is the first is executing a binary,
>>> which has to basically create everything (connection, payload, etc) every
>>> time through the loop. The second does not - it creates the client once,
>>> then iterates over it keeping the same client and presumably the same
>>> connection as well. That makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>> I would not use curl to do performance testing. What you probably want is
>>> something like your python script that will work on many threads/processes
>>> at once (or fire them up many times).
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Anderson
>>> Co-Founder
>>> CopperEgg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
