I don't believe allow_mult is enabled. It shouldn't be at least! On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Brian Roach <ro...@basho.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Dietrich Featherston > <dietrich.feathers...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Primarily stores but I did see one case of socket timeouts simply building a >> new connection pool using the rjc. > > This should be simply a result of attempting to bring up another > instance of the client when the node can't accept more connections and > when it tries to "warm up" the connection pool, those connections time > out. > >> We are simply doing a put. It is not uncommon for keys to be overwritten but >> we are not >> providing a vector clock. There is a dedicated master performing the write >> for a given key >> upstream from riak and overwriting is always safe (assuming last one wins) >> but we don't >> hold onto the vector clock. >> >> It seems possible/likely that we are inadvertently invoking some riak >> consistency >> machinery by turning off the get prior to put using withoutFetch(). Would it >> help to attempt >> to coordinate writes in another way? > > Are you using a bucket with allow_mult enabled? > >> Somewhat related: I've been curious about writing a smart riak client that >> writes to a node >> based on the preflist for a key to avoid unnecessary internal handing off of >> reads and >> writes when possible. Two things strike me though 1) would need to compute >> this preflist >> outside of riak and 2) unsure how impactful this change would be without >> better >> understanding where internal riak bottlenecks present themselves. Perhaps >> best left for >> another thread. > > Yeah - a bit off topic but we've talked about this (not in great > detail as of yet) internally. > > - Roach _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
