iak-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Connecting to a single host vs balancing requests
(Geoff Garbers)
2. Re: Connecting to a single host vs balancing requests (John Daily)
--
Message: 1
Date:
If you can help us what goal is trying to be achieved by taking that
approach, perhaps we can refute the logic (or find a better solution). It
sounds suspiciously like someone is trying to avoid the complexities of
siblings and conflict resolution (a goal which your architecture doesn't
actually ac
Nope, the reads will be randomly distributed through the other four
nodes (riak2 through to riak5 - selected from within a hard-coded list
of host names).
I sincerely doubt our workload would require some sort of complicated
workload set-up. As for your question as to why I'm doing this - I
don't
When you do read / modify / writes, are you also planning on sending
the relevant read through one node only? In that case, your update
latency might suffer if the egress queues of your designated node get
backed up on writes, waiting for a very low cost read query.
You're more likely to get awkwa
Hi all.
Apologies if I'm not using the mailing list correctly - this is the
first time I'm posting to a mailing list.
We're in the process of redeveloping our systems using Riak, and will
be using five nodes initially. Let's call these nodes riak1 through to
riak5. Our read/write/delete distribut
