Sean, how do you explain these rather huge improvements Amazon presents in their Dynamo paper?
On 08.09.2012, at 18:02, Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> wrote: > Sebastian, > > There are plans to have client-driven request routing (that is, at > least sending the request to a member of the preflist) in the future, > but that is currently vaporware. An interim solution we have discussed > was to send the client a "hint" as to where to send a request for that > key on the next time around, but that is also unimplemented. On > well-performing client and Riak machines, the difference will be > small-to-negligible anyway; the primary effect of sending a request to > the member of the preflist would be reduced network traffic between > the Riak nodes themselves. > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Sebastian Cohnen > <sebastian.coh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> AFAIK Riak does not expose these data via API in order to implement a >> "client-driven coordination", right? >> >> This sounds quite interesting and would be a nice way to reduce latencies >> when talking to Riak. >> >> Best >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> On 31.08.2012, at 10:55, Dave Brady <dbr...@weborama.com> wrote: >> >> There's a reference to an article on Basho's site, written by Amazon, about >> Dynamo: >> >> http://features.basho.com/entries/20535121-weighted-nodes >> >> Section 6.4 explains why they do not use load balancers. >> >> The rest of the article is good reading, too. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Sean Carey" <ca...@basho.com> >> To: "Matt Black" <matt.bl...@jbadigital.com> >> Cc: "riak-users" <riak-users@lists.basho.com> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:09:00 PM >> Subject: Re: Riak behind a Load Balancer >> >> Matt, >> Haproxy is my load balancer of choice. You can always run multiple copies of >> haproxy and use some type of dynamic dns with it. >> >> We do this in many cases. Haproxy scales well. I've seen a single node >> sustain multiple gigabits per second with almost no sweat. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Sean >> On Monday, June 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Matt Black wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on the concept of putting a Riak cluster behind >> a load balancer? >> >> We wish to be able to automatically add/remove nodes from the cluster, so >> adding an extra layer at the front is desirable. We should also benefit for >> incoming requests behind shared across all nodes. >> >> Can anyone see any drawbacks / problems with doing this? >> >> Thanks >> Matt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> > Software Engineer > Basho Technologies, Inc. > http://basho.com/ _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
