On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Justin Sheehy wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> How do things like mongo and elasticsearch manage atomic operations
>> while still being redundant?
>
> Most such systems use some variant of primary copy replication, also known as
> m
On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> How do things like mongo and elasticsearch manage atomic operations
> while still being redundant?
Most such systems use some variant of primary copy replication, also known as
master/slave replication.
That approach can provide consistency, b
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Jon Meredith wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> After some discussion internally we've agreed that setting PR=R, PW=W=DW and
> PR+PW > N is insufficient to guarantee reading your writes.
How do things like mongo and elasticsearch manage atomic operations
while still being redu
Hi list,
After some discussion internally we've agreed that setting PR=R, PW=W=DW
and PR+PW > N is insufficient to guarantee reading your writes.
In the case where PR=quorum, PW=quorum, say for N=3 that would mean
PR=R=PW=W=DW=2 there is at least one case where you would not be
*guaranteed* to rea
That's good to know; thanks. I imagine I may have to vary my physical node
count as time goes by, and I wondering how much planning ahead that might take.
Going by your example, if my n_val is 4 and an object hashes to partition 6,
then my object will be stored only on two physical nodes, right?
On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:46 PM, John DeTreville wrote:
> A related question. You say that if my n_val is 3, some data may reside only
> on 2 physical nodes. Ignoring failures, might some of it of reside on just
> one node?
That's a function of ring size and number of nodes in your cluster. For
Excellent answer; thank you.
I imagine the unavailability I see will depend strongly on the speed of read
repairs. Since I have quite a lot of data, I imagine that they might be quite
slow, but I probably can't say more than that without real measurements.
A related question. You say that if my
That's terrific. Thank you.
-J
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM, David Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jason J. W. Williams
> wrote:
> > How does Riak Control differ from the management tools included in the
> > enterprise version?
>
> Riak Control is a redesign of those manage
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jason J. W. Williams
wrote:
> How does Riak Control differ from the management tools included in the
> enterprise version?
Riak Control is a redesign of those management tools and a release of
that functionality to Open Source. We want it to be drop-dead easy for
Ah, OK thanks. I misread in the Riak Control README of the availability of
the self signed certs in Riak 1.0.2 and later as an indication Riak Control
was available in 1.0.2.
--
Jeremy
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> Riak control will be part of the 1.1 series, it is
Jeremy,
When you upgrade, your /etc/app.config file isn't altered (we don't want to
blow away your previous settings). With a fresh install, there will be a new
section in app.config for riak_control, which you can also manually add. But,
as Andrew already replied, riak_control will be "offici
How does Riak Control differ from the management tools included in the
enterprise version?
-J
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> Riak control will be part of the 1.1 series, it is not present in 1.0.2
> or any of the 1.0 releases.
>
> Andrew
>
> __
Riak control will be part of the 1.1 series, it is not present in 1.0.2
or any of the 1.0 releases.
Andrew
___
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
Elias,
Which Riak release are you running? Riak 1.0.2?
--
Ian Plosker
Developer Advocate
Basho Technologies
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Elias Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM, David Smith (mailto:diz...@basho.com)> wrote:
> >
> > Rebalancing can be quite expensi
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM, David Smith wrote:
>
> Rebalancing can be quite expensive with the default claim algorithm
> that ships in all releases to date. In the 1.0.3 release (dropping
> this week, I hope), we will be switching to a new default claim
> algorithm that will dramatically de
Hi,
I was following the instructions here (
https://github.com/basho/riak_control ) to enable Riak Control. After
enabling https/ssl and changing the https port (to ) I get a 404 when
navigating to https://host:/admin. Would Riak Control be installed when
upgrading a cluster or only on fre
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Elias Levy
wrote:
> Is this expected behavior? Granted, these are EC2 boxes and Leveldb depends
> heavily on disk, but I can't imagine folks using Riak on production his this
> type of performance hit resulting from rebalancing.
tl;dr - yes, adding nodes can cr
Thomas,
I just replicated your setup (at least for the PR gets) and you can
indeed violate PR/PW when you pause a node on a VM. The reason this
happens is that riak's check for PR/PW simply looks at the ring's
preflist for a partition and checks that the required number of
partitions for that pref
I'll leave the stats questions for someone else, but I'll try to
answer your rebalancing questions.
First off, what ring size is your cluster? If it's larger than 256,
you could be hitting a known gossip overload condition. Generally,
anything under 1024 is fine, but for EC2, 256/512 may be the re
> There's a code snippet in riak 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 release notes which addresses
> this. Sorry can't find it for you, network here is useless. :(
The code snippet in the release notes deals with a different issue.
The case where Riak believes all handoff has already occurred, but
refuses to actually
Good day,
Yesterday we went through the exercise of doubling the size of our initial
3 node cluster. The rebalancing took four hours or so. Each node now has
between 7 and 8 GB of data stored in the Leveldb backend with an n_val of
3.
During rebalancing the cluster became nearly useless. The CP
There's a code snippet in riak 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 release notes which addresses
this. Sorry can't find it for you, network here is useless. :(
Ivaylo Panitchkov wrote:
>
>Hello All,
>
>We have a cluster of three machines (Debian 6.0, 4GB RAM,
>riak_1.0.2-1_amd64.deb, n_val: 3) that serves an appli
Is there a way to change riak's temp folder location from /tmp/riak to
something else? I didn't see an option for this in the app.config or
elsewhere.
--
Jeremy
___
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinf
Ivaylo,
It appears that handoff is stuck. This should not happen, and I have
filed a bug report to track this issue:
https://issues.basho.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317
I believe I know the cause, and believe it is fixed in master leading
up to our next major release. I'll update the ticket with my fin
Let me elaborate a tiny bit more.
Consider the write(2) syscall on Unix and likealooks. If it succeeds, it
returns the number of bytes written. If it fails, it returns -1. One must
sometimes learn the hard way that some bytes may have been written even in the
case of failure, but that there is
Typically, something like this would be caused by replicas being lost as
Search currently has no anti-entropy. I imagine you would have mentioned
replica loss if that was the case, though. You've seen this problem at
least twice, correct? Were there other occurrences? If so how many and
about h
2012/1/10 Ryan Zezeski :
> When you say "doesn't show up on the search query results *anymore*" does
> that imply that at one time they did?
Absolutely. As a matter of fact that's what some of my users were
asking: "why can't I see X anymore?".
> I'm trying to understand if the index
> entries a
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for getting back with me, and my apologies that it's taken me so
long to respond. Thank you for the explanation! You also came up with the
right diagnosis of my problem. I fixed it sometime just before Christmas
and everything has been working fine with riak_core since.
Once I g
Hello All,
We have a cluster of three machines (Debian 6.0, 4GB RAM,
riak_1.0.2-1_amd64.deb, n_val: 3) that serves an application for a
while. As we go to production soon added a fourth machine to the cluster
(exactly the same as the first three) yesterday. The partition handoff
began in the
Francisco,
When you say "doesn't show up on the search query results *anymore*" does
that imply that at one time they did? I'm trying to understand if the
index entries appear to have been lost or if it was never successfully
written in the first place.
Any errors you see in the logs may be rele
Karthik,
I'm think you need to call execute on the StoreObject, like so:
> > > riakClient = RiakFactory.pbcClient();
> > > myBucket =
> > > riakClient.createBucket("myBucket").nVal(1).execute();
> > > for (int i = 1; i <= 100; ++i) {
> > >
Thanks all for the support. I ran the tarball instead of the source :) I shall
try these if I need to run the source again.
Thanks again
Suresh Chandran
From: Bip Thelin
To: Sean Cribbs
Cc: suresh chandran ; "riak-users@lists.basho.com"
Sent: Monday, Janu
Around 5% of the keys on that bucket are missing from the search
results. Not reassuring.
2012/1/10 francisco treacy :
> Hi all,
>
> I am running (still) 0.14.2 in production, and using Riak Search to
> index certain buckets. Those buckets have the Riak Search pre-commit
> hook enabled.
>
> Once i
Hi all,
I am running (still) 0.14.2 in production, and using Riak Search to
index certain buckets. Those buckets have the Riak Search pre-commit
hook enabled.
Once in a while I get complaints of missing documents from my clients,
and it just happened.
I checked and the document:
- is correctly
34 matches
Mail list logo
