Hi all -
I have some questions about how I want my Riak stuff to work - I've already
asked these questions of some Basho people and gotten some answers, but
thought I would toss it out into the wider world to see what you all have
to say, too:
First off - I know 5 instances is the "magic number"
Were I in your position, I'd stand up a 5 node cluster in US-WEST-2 and
> be
> > done with it. I'd consider Riak EE for my HA/DR solution once the
> business
> > decides that off-site HA/DR is something it wants/needs.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Jerem
till learning all the pieces, but luckily I have a company upstairs
> from me that does a very similar thing with > 300TB and is willing to help
> me set up my ZFS backup infrastructure.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Brady Wetherington > wrote:
>
&g
it if at some point they could make that guarantee with
number of boxes=n. I understand it's being worked-on). Once rack-awareness
comes in - or the n=number of boxes fix comes in - I'll probably have to
re-ponder my math. That'll be a good problem for me to have, though :)
-B.
On
Oh, I thought the rule was "if you have one more node than your n_val, then
you can be sure each replica will be on a distinct node" - is that not
correct?
Also with n of 2 I would wonder how you would handle r and w - my guess
would be you *could* set them to 1 each, and just deal with possible
c
I've been working with Basho to get those documents updated - in short - I
have a pull request that makes using Riak with EIP's in Classic-EC2 much,
much easier. They have accepted it, but it has not been merged with the
mainline yet. I'm assuming you are *not* on VPC, is that correct?
If so, you
Well, I'm not sure, and I'm new to Riak too, but I *think* you'd need to
set allow_multi on the bucket.
-B.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Gints wrote:
> I did a PUT, and the vclock that came back was:
> a85hYGBgzGDKBVIcypz/fgZJFylnMCUy5rEyNOdtOc2XBQA=
>
> Then I read the object back, modifi
I've built it a solid proof-of-concept system on leveldb, and use some 2i
indexes in order to search for certain things - usually just for counts of
things.
I have two questions so far:
First off, why is Bitcask the default? Is it just because it is faster? Or
is it considered more 'stable' or so
M, Jeremiah Peschka <
jeremiah.pesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> inline.
>
> ---
> Jeremiah Peschka - Founder, Brent Ozar Unlimited
> MCITP: SQL Server 2008, MVP
> Cloudera Certified Developer for Apache Hadoop
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Brady Wetherington
> wrote:
when creating the
> objects.
>
> Runar
>
>
> 2013/9/27 Brady Wetherington
>>
>> Since I'm doing a write-once, update-never environment - I don't see how
>> allow_mult would help me otherwise? A new write will always be to a new key.
>&g
Hi guys -
So I've got my early proof-of-concept work ready to go, everything is
looking and working well.
Of course, things really only get interesting when something breaks.
So that's my question - we know that Riak itself already has lots of
provisions for what happens if a node is down when w
What happens to your 2i indexes if you do a write and one of the nodes
you're trying to write to is down?
http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/dev/using/2i/ says:
- When you want or need anti-entropy. Since 2i is just metadata on the
KV object and the indexes reside on the same node, 2i piggy
You don't say _how_ you get the last_event_id for a particular aggregate -
but presuming that's a relatively trivial operation - you could change
around your secondary index so you just have to make a range query.
Instead of - or possibly in addition to - the aggregate_id, you could have
an aggreg
Huh. I thought we were supposed to use "force-replace" instead of "reip"?
I remember having a discussion a few months back about the documentation
and we cleared it up a little.
Is "reip" the same as "force-replace", or is it more..."quick-and-dirty?"
Is it deprecated?
-B.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013
14 matches
Mail list logo
