Both AWS engineers and Basho people, will most likely ask for throughput etc before recommending solutions.
That being said, there’s a few things to consider. For example, most AWS engineers will suggest you use all the availability zones when deploying a distributed storage solution like Riak. That gives you enough resilience for a broad range of scenarios and failures. You won’t get the 10 Gbps network you’d get with a placement group. But on the other hand a placement group means running everything in a single availability zone => less resilience. Again, it depends a lot on the use case. We don’t do financial transactions, and we have moderate IO, so we went with m4 instances in 3 availability zones. I believe I would still favour this setup even for considerably higher IO. Mainly because we have literally just one bucket that is required to be strongly consistent, everything else (99%) is still something we manage using conflict resolution, etc. So that’s another aspect to consider - if you have a lot of strong consistency usecases then probably a placement group would help when you have a high volume of writes. Regards Cosmin On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 09:20, Alexander Popov wrote: > What to choose C4 or M4 ? > > M4 benefits: > * twice more memory > > C4 benefits: > * can be launched in one placement group, that potential can improve nodes > communications performance > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com (mailto: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
