On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Joshua Muzaaya <joshm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is not meant to down-market Riak, but you mentioned Billions of > records. Riak storage is known to have a few issues as data grows to > billions. However, Couchbase 2.0 has been kinda battle tested, using SQLite > at the storage layer. I'm not sure how you are backing up this assertion (citation?). We have customers storing terabytes of data with billions of records (using LevelDB). SQLite as the storage engine does not necessarily make Couchbase more stable or battle-tested, just better known among the wider community. On the other hand, we have spent the last eighteen months, in collaboration with the original authors at Google, hardening and improving the performance of LevelDB to support large deployments, and it now performs very well (although we still can do better). I'm not saying that the OP should not consider Couchbase, but either product is going to require more than just a casual knowledge of ops to deploy, manage and maintain. Clustered datastores are not for the faint-of-heart, so if the OP can do it in a local SQL database, then he should. 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
