Re: LevelDB driver

Hi, Phil. I might have caused a little confusion. I mentioned, but perhaps didn't sufficiently emphasize, that the benchmark comparing LevelDB to InnoDB was not a benchmark of Riak at all, but just directly talking to the storage engines in order to look at the feasibility of doing more with Level

Re: LevelDB driver

Can you share some LevelDB config examples? I've built latest from github and know that I've got the elevedb driver/wrapper. make devrel is producing a {storage_backend, riak_kv_bitcask_backend} ... is it as simple as changing this to riak_kv_eleveldb_backend? Perhaps I missed it ... but did you

Re: LevelDB driver

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Will Moss wrote: > I know you guys are busy working on various new features, is this going to > make it into the next production release? Is there a date for that? Is there > somewhere to look at your road map so I don't have to spam the list? Hi Will, Yes, the

Re: LevelDB driver

Hey Justin/Dave, I know you guys are busy working on various new features, is this going to make it into the next production release? Is there a date for that? Is there somewhere to look at your road map so I don't have to spam the list? Thanks, Will On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Justin Sheeh

Re: LevelDB driver

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jonathan Langevin wrote: > Thanks Justin for the helpful response :-) Happy to help. > Can you define what you would consider "huge" regarding # keys? A bit depends on the details (such as key size) but generally the tipping point is somewhere near ten million

Re: LevelDB driver

Thanks Justin for the helpful response :-) * Can you define what you would consider "huge" regarding # keys? Jonathan Langevin Systems Administrator Loom Inc. Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - jlange...@loomlearning.com - www.loomlearning.com - Skype: intel352 * On

Re: LevelDB driver

Hi, Jonathan. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jonathan Langevin wrote: > I've seen users show concern of Bitcask's space usage overhead. How does that > compare against LevelDB? Bitcask doesn't have much in the way of disk space "overhead" unless you mean that the space used by deleted or overw

Re: LevelDB driver

I've seen users show concern of Bitcask's space usage overhead. How does that compare against LevelDB? Would LevelDB be a good solution for log data? If using a Level backend, what advantages do we lose of Bitcask? ls replication & availability an issue at all? * Jo

Re: LevelDB driver

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Will Moss wrote: > This is very cool--glad you guys decided to bundle this in. The linked post > and the Google Code page both suggest that it will have a much more > efficient on-disk representation than InnoDB, do you have an specific > numbers on overhead per ke

Re: LevelDB driver

Hey Dave, This is very cool--glad you guys decided to bundle this in. The linked post and the Google Code page both suggest that it will have a much more efficient on-disk representation than InnoDB, do you have an specific numbers on overhead per key? Thanks, Will On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:03 A

LevelDB driver

Hi all, Yesterday, we merged in support for the LevelDB (http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/) as a backend driver for Riak. Initial benchmarking of LevelDB suggests that it is competitive to InnoDB (aka innostore) for most use cases. The recovery model is much better, as LevelDB uses an append-only