[erlang-questions] Using Key/Value store with shared storage
Mon Dec 10 19:21:32 CET 2012
> This seems flawed to me. Do you want resiliency, or shared storage?
Ooooh. Troll! :-)
Seriously though - as Max Lapshin points out, w/ the exception of doing some very interesting (read complex, and potentially destabilizing) architecting w/ infiniband, multiple links and cascade setups, you are going to be seriously bottle-necking on your shared storage.
And, to Garret's point, resiliency and shared storage are (kinda) orthogonal. An appropriately spilled can of coke can wreak havoc to your shared storage, and BigCouch/Riak/Voldemort/... can be remarkably resilient.
A few years back, we migrated out of the "eggs in one basket" SAN approach to BigCouch. Our SAN setup was increasingly starting to look something that would give even Rube Goldberg nightmares, and the sheer amount of hackery associated with this was starting to keep me up at nights.
Anyhow, just my two bits...
That Tall Bald Indian Guy...
Google+ | Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
> Aye, as well, this is curious:
>> we would like to make the solution more resilient by using shared storage
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Max Lapshin <> wrote:
>> You speak about many servers but one SAN.
>> What for? Real throughput is limited about 3 gbps. It means that you will be
>> limited in writing no more than 10000 values ok 30kb per second.
>> There will be no cheap way to scale after this limit if you use storage, but
>> if you shard and throw away your raid, you can scale.
>> Maybe yo
>> On Monday, December 10, 2012, Sean D wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> We are currently running an application for a customer that stores a large
>>> number of key/value pairs. Performance is important for us as we need to
>>> maintain a write rate of at least 10,000 keys/second on one server. After
>>> evaluating various key/value stores, we found Bitcask worked extremely
>>> for us and we went with this.
>>> The solution currently has multiple servers working independently of each
>>> and we would like to make the solution more resilient by using shared
>>> storage. I.e. If one of the servers goes down, the others can pick up the
>>> work load and add to/read from the same store.
>>> I am aware that Riak seems to be the standard solution for a resilient
>>> key-value store in the Erlang world, however from my initial
>>> this seems to work by duplicating the data between Riak nodes, and this is
>>> something I want to avoid as the number of keys we are storing will be in
>>> the range of 100s of GB and I would prefer that the shared storage is used
>>> rather than data needing to be duplicated. I am also concerned that the
>>> overhead of Riak may prove a bottle-neck, however this isn't something
>>> I have tested.
>>> If anyone here has used a key/value store with a SAN or similar in this
>>> I'd be very keen to hear your experiences.
>>> Many thanks in advance,
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions