Hi Eric, I this test, R=1 (the default).
Thanks! - Matt On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Eric Moritz <[email protected]> wrote: > When you were doing the reads, did you set the r-value to 1? This > will speed up reads in a read heavy app because only one node has to > be in agreement about the object. > > Eric. > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Matt Savona <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> My colleagues and I are evaluating Riak as a persistent, replicated K-V >> store. >> >> I have a fairly simple (and not so scientific) test that reads and >> writes 5000 objects that are 32K in size. I am particularly interested >> in squeezing every last bit of performance out of Riak in a very >> read-heavy environment. I want to avoid hitting disk for reads as much >> as possible; our entire content set is much larger than could ever be >> stored in RAM, but preferably hot/active objects will remain resident >> in memory until various conditions may force them to be evicted. While >> the content set is quite large, the number of active keys represent a >> very small portion of the data which could easily fit in RAM. >> >> I've been running the same test against Riak given various >> combinations of backends and access protocols (HTTP vs. PB). >> >> My numbers can be seen in this screenshot: >> http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3185/riakperformance.png >> >> It is quite evident (and perhaps obvious) that Protocol Buffer >> performance is noticeably better than HTTP in most cases. >> >> What is confusing to me is the performance of purely in-memory >> backends. Notably, GB Trees and LRU Cache (and even Innostore), at >> best took 14s to retrieve 5000 32K objects. The exact same test >> against Membase took just 6s. >> >> Perhaps I'm not comparing apples to apples (Riak in-memory versus >> Membase). Do my tests look reasonable and do the numbers look roughly >> in-line with expectations? Is there any way to squeeze more juice out >> of Riak? A purely in-memory/non-persistent backend will not suffice >> for our ultimate needs, but for testing purposes I'm just trying to >> see if I can get read performance more in line with what we're seeing >> with Membase. We love everything about it, but we haven't yet hit the >> performance we were hoping for. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> - Matt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> riak-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >> > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
