On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Maxime Brugidou <maxime.brugi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I don't understand why all this is necessary. > > I strongly disagree with the "horizontal scalability" of mongoDB ( i run a > very large mongodb cluster in production in addition to other databases) > and would rather suggest a pluggable backend with a simpler default (like > text files or maybe postgresql or mysql). > I'll just 2nd this opinion. My immediate reaction to the addition of mongo is rejection - my experience with it at scale has been awful & on a small scale it always feels like overkill. Further, since the data being served seems like a relatively small dataset it's unclear to me why there cannot be more options. For our use case (which is ~180k metrics) an in-memory datastore for metadata should be more than sufficient assuming it can be re-hydrated from some persistent source which could simply be waiting for a polling interval of gmetad. I have no need for the addition of nagios / rsyslog events. I've never looked at Ganglia as a horizontally scalable system and accepted that because it made things simple. If I need to scale it out I need to partition my grids / clusters. Not understanding what cool new capabilities will result from having a database like Mongo backing the metadata my guess is that I'd stick w/ 3.x for as long as I could and then find another solution. If the addition of this complexity added considerable capabilities that were *actually* realized then perhaps I'd use it, but I can't imagine what that would be. Thanks, Aaron -- Twitter: @anichols Blog: http://www.opsbs.com Pro: http://www.linkedin.com/in/anichols
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ganglia-general mailing list Ganglia-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-general
