One more use-case for backups: If you're running a big cluster and UserX makes a bad code deploy which horks a bunch of data ... restore may be the only option.
It happens. -mox On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John E. Vincent < lusis.org+riak-us...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to take a competing view here. > > SAN is a bit overloaded of a term at this point. Nothing precludes a SAN > from being performant or having SSDs. Yes the cost is overkill for fiber > but iSCSI is much more realistic. Alternately you can even do ATAoE. > > From a hardware perspective, if I have 5 pizza boxes as riak nodes, I can > only fit so many disks in them. Meanwhile I can add another shelf to my SAN > and expand as needed. Additionally backup of a SAN is MUCH easier than > backup of a riak node itself. It's a snapshot and you're done. Mind you > nothing precludes you from doing LVM snapshots in the OS but you still need > to get the data OFF that system for it to be truly backed up. > > I love riak and other distributed stores but backing them up is NOT a > solved problem. Walking all keys, coordinating the take down of all your > nodes in a given order or whatever your strategy is a serious pain point. > > Using a SAN or local disk also doesn't excuse you from watching I/O > performance. With a SAN I get multiple redundant paths to a block device > and I don't get that necessarily with local storage. > > Just my two bits. > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Jeremiah Peschka < > jeremiah.pesc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Could you do it? Sure. >> >> Should you do it? No. >> >> An advantage of Riak is that you can avoid the cost of SAN storage by >> getting duplication at the machine level rather than rely on your storage >> vendor to provide it. >> >> Running Riak on a SAN also exposes you to the SAN becoming your >> bottleneck; you only have so many fiber/iSCSI ports and a fixed number of >> disks. The risk of storage contention is high, too, so you can run into >> latency issues that are difficult to diagnose without looking into both >> Riak as well as the storage system. >> >> Keeping cost in mind, too, SAN storage is about 10x the cost of consumer >> grade SSDs. Not to mention feature licensing and support... The cost >> comparison isn't favorable. >> >> Please note: Even though your vendor calls it a SAN, that doesn't mean >> it's a SAN. >> On Oct 1, 2013 11:08 PM, "Guy Morton" <guy.mor...@bksv.com> wrote: >> >>> Does this make sense? >>> >>> -- >>> Guy Morton >>> Web Development Manager >>> Brüel & Kjær EMS >>> >>> This e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied and used only by the >>> intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please contact the >>> sender immediately by return e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and do >>> not disclose its contents to any other person. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> riak-users mailing list >>> riak-users@lists.basho.com >>> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> riak-users mailing list >> riak-users@lists.basho.com >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
