Thanks , that makes sense and I think it gives me my answer. I suppose I'm trying to understand if say , an acceptable perf decrease of ~%5 is a healthy trade off in order to mitigate against a future (but possibly unlikely) capacity cap .
John On 3 Oct 2013, at 18:51, Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> wrote: > Your main concern with greater numbers of partitions is contention for IO > (and CPU time for the vnodes to process requests). Consider that with 6 > nodes, you will have 170(+/- 1) partitions running on each physical node. > That's *at least* 170 files open, all scribbling to and reading from disk. > You might get away with 512, but my experience tells me to be wary of that > for small clusters. I think unless you're doing big-web-property-level > traffic you won't need to grow your cluster as large as you think, especially > with machines that beefy. > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM, John Kavanagh <jkavan...@zendesk.com> wrote: > Hi Sean , > > What would the perform issues be with setting a ring size to 1024 (instead of > 128 or 256) on a 6 node cluster? > > I can see the possibility of memory overflow (which is not a high concern on > a 128G machine ) , but other than that , are there any additional concerns > (with Bitcask) ? > > I'm trying to understand if there is a significant performance degradation > with a value of 1024 versus future proofing growth. > > Cheers, > > John > > On 3 Oct 2013, at 16:33, Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Our rule-of-thumb is 8-64 partitions per physical node, so a good starting >> point for a 6-node cluster would be 128 or 256. 256 will let you expand up >> to about 30 nodes without needing a ring resize. >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM, John Kavanagh <j...@kavanista.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm trying to understand the optimal ring size / vnode config for a 6 node >> Riak cluster, which will most likely expand to many more nodes over time . >> Does everyone bump from the default of 64 to 1024 to facilitate future >> growth ? I can provide more detailed capacity metrics off list if necessary. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > -- > 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
