Sounds pretty respectable for commodity hardware! That consistently
low latency seems unachievable in the cloud- I guess because of the
slower disk and memory I/O too.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Toby Corkindale
wrote:
> Thanks,
> it's interesting to hear of what performance other people are
Thanks,
it's interesting to hear of what performance other people are achieving
with Riak.
With a not-too-dissimilarly-configured[1] basho_bench test, we see
throughput between 6000-7000 ops/sec. get/put latencies are under 2/4ms
respectively for mean values, and under 6/12ms for 99th percent
Here is an updated 2 hour graph of the same "X-Small" 5-node cluster,
after having performed all the Linux tuning steps I had missed first
time around. Also added ntpd service to all nodes. Looks like slightly
better throughput & latency, but a much cleaner graph overall, and it
should "burst" much
Hi Alex,
Does azure allow you to ensure that your vm's are not on the same physical
host? Linode lets me do that and you kinda need that when running something
like Riak.
Thanks,
-Alexander Sicular
@siculars
On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Alex Rice wrote:
> Thanks for the link, James!
>
> Wi
Thanks for the link, James!
Windows Azure has an odd SLA- in fact if you read the fine print they
dont even offer SLA for individual VMs. They reserve the right to take
down individual VMs if they need to do an upgrades of the Host OS. But
they offer 'availability zones' so you can make sure only
Alex,
Nice work benchmarking! One thing to keep in mind (and you probably
are well aware of this), particularly when benchmarking on cloud
platforms, is that there are a lot of factors that affect performance
outside -- other tenants, blackbox hardware upgrades, changes in SLAs
-- just to name a
Thanks for sharing. Information on benchmarks is very useful because we
often get questions about "ballpark benchmarks for X hardware" on the
mailing list. I'm glad you are getting good performance on a relatively
inexpensive cluster.
-Jared
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Alex Rice wrote:
>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Tom Santero wrote:
> Yeah, I noticed the "bitcask" in the dropbox url after I sent the email. Be
> sure to keep an eye on memory utilization on each node.
>
> Best of luck generating revenue!
Thanks! Here is a 2 hour graph. Seems pretty solid! The only change was
Yeah, I noticed the "bitcask" in the dropbox url after I sent the email. Be
sure to keep an eye on memory utilization on each node.
Best of luck generating revenue!
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Alex Rice wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Tom Santero wrote:
> > Nice.
> >
> > Can you
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Alex Rice wrote:
> I am using this in a production environment
I am ** considering** using this in a production environment :)
___
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/list
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Tom Santero wrote:
> Nice.
>
> Can you share your bb config? Is this against leveldb or bitcask? I'm
> assuming leveldb, considering the limited RAM on these instances. If thats
> the case, I suggest running your benchmarks for longer than 20 minutes (i.e.
> severa
Nice.
Can you share your bb config? Is this against leveldb or bitcask? I'm
assuming leveldb, considering the limited RAM on these instances. If thats
the case, I suggest running your benchmarks for longer than 20 minutes
(i.e. several hours) if possible, just to get a feel for how well riak will
Hey, something that is impressive about Riak is how well it performs
even on super low end cloud virtualization (unlike for example,
couchbase, which hardly runs at all unless you have quad cores per
each node)
Having so much fun benchmarking, it's really distracting me from coding!
the cluster
13 matches
Mail list logo
