Since the data he is requiring to store is only "transient", would it
make sense to set N=2 for performance? Or will N=2 have the opposite
effect due to amount of nodes having such replica?
Guido.
On 18/07/13 16:15, Jared Morrow wrote:
Kumar,
We have a few customers who use the memory backend. The first example
I could find (with the help of our CSE team) uses the memory backend
on 8 machines with 12gb of ram each.
I know you are just testing right now, but we'd suggest using 5 node
minimum. With N=3 on a 3-node cluster you could be writing multiple
replicas to the same machine.
Good luck in your testing,
-Jared
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:38 AM, kpandey <kumar.pan...@gmail.com
<mailto:kumar.pan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Are there known production installation of riak that uses
riak_kv_memory_backend. We have a need to store transient data
just in
memory ( never hitting persistent store). I'm testing riak on aws
with 3
node cluster and looks good so far. Just wanted to find out what
kind of
setup people are using in production.
Thanks
Kumar
--
View this message in context:
http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/riak-kv-memory-backend-in-production-tp4028393.html
Sent from the Riak Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com <mailto: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
