First of all, thank you for your reply.
Well, if you tell me that I can beat myself up trying to get what another
person gets in a benchmark, then I don't understand what's the whole point
in post your results here. I thought that you were trying to tell me that
in an similar setup, you could do m
Sorry, I forgot to add your results, using bitcask:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/183971/summary.png
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Uruka Dark wrote:
> Just an update.
>
> I ran the benchmark again, but now, using Memory backend:
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/308392/memory_summary.png
>
better results, but I don't know if it was supposed to happen.
Anyway, your results are still much better, even when I'm using memory only
backend (50% of yours).
Maybe it can help to understand what is happening.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Uruka Dark wrote:
> Jared,
>
> Ag
Riak isn't always the
> best choice, but when it comes with staying available and performance while
> systems are failing no other system has a better real-world story than Riak.
>
> If you still want to get your single node performance up, we have several
> pages on our docs
Jared,
Thank you for you time and reply.
I got impressed by your numbers and I started to double check my settings.
I found a big problem here, my third machine (the one out of the cluster,
making the load), was not talking to Riak in gigabit speed, it was 100 Mbs.
I changed the network cable and
u for your support.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Christian Dahlqvist wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 19:10, Uruka Dark wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitri,
> I don't know why, but I could not receive your reply. I saw it following
> the url of the mailing list.
>
> Any way, thank you for you
ke a look to see if any obvious stumbling block comes to
mind. I agree, that's way lower than you should be getting with Riak on
that hardware.
Dmitri
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Uruka Dark wrote:
> As I told, maybe I'm trying to use Riak in an improperly way, but this is
&g
any one could help me with
it, I'll be thankful. I don't want to give up on Riak so fast.
Thank you.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Uruka Dark wrote:
> I understand.
> To eliminate any problems related to Bitcask, I changed to Memory backend
> and now I can store roughly 80 ob
rk). Just to name a few:
> bitcask settings (
> http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/tutorials/choosing-a-backend/Bitcask/#Tuning-Bitcask),
> w-quorum, HTTP vs ProtoBuf, ring_creation_size, ...
>
> On 02.11.2012, at 13:15, Uruka Dark wrote:
>
> I'm hitting just one of them.
can do any test.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Sebastian Cohnen wrote:
> What level of concurrency are you using in your test setup? Are you
> hitting both servers with your test? What is your n_val and w?
>
>
> On 02.11.2012, at 03:42, Uruka Dark wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
Hi,
I'm new here and with Riak. If I do something wrong, please, let me know.
I've made a Riak cluster with two identical machines: Intel core i3 2.3GHz
4GB RAM 1TB HD. They are connected by a gigabit ethernet network.
Everything is working fine. I'm using a Bitcask backend.
I've made a PHP scri
11 matches
Mail list logo
