Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: abhijith K <abhijith....@gmail.com>
To: neo4j@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <e0ed22f3-befe-4937-8758-3a4106ddcc8d@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <a64b5c47-1490-44cc-9a85-90ecc70d61a0@googlegroups.com>
References: <a64b5c47-1490-44cc-9a85-90ecc70d61a0@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Neo4J for "big data"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2207_10403927.1350098685598"

------=_Part_2207_10403927.1350098685598
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2208_6663371.1350098685598"

------=_Part_2208_6663371.1350098685598
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

With the VFS in place(Linux), and NFS as a filesystem cant we actually 
shard Graph DB for many machines ? Just a thought came to my mind ... hence 
sharing

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:03:12 PM UTC+5:30, RickBullotta wrote:
>
> I was giving some thought to the capacities/limits of Neo4J, and I 
> realized that the 32 billion node/relationship limit, while it seems large, 
> is not really all that huge.  Imagine a system (web server, app server, 
> machine) that generates some interesting data at a fairly high rate 
> (tweets, web hits, etc.).  And let's be conservative and assume that each 
> of those instance of data require a node and 3 relationships.  The limiting 
> factor then becomes 10 billion relationships.  If you do the math, that 
> only allows data to be stored for 300 or so events per second for one year, 
> and then you're maxed out.  If the data requires any more than a couple 
> properties, then it becomes the limiting factor and the capacity shrinks 
> even further.
>
> Given that we live in an area of big (and getting bigger) data, are there 
> plans to lift those limitations in future releases?
>

------=_Part_2208_6663371.1350098685598
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

With the VFS in place(Linux), and NFS as a filesystem cant we actually shar=
d Graph DB for many machines ? Just a thought came to my mind ... hence sha=
ring<br><br>On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:03:12 PM UTC+5:30, RickBullotta =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8=
ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">I was giving some though=
t to the capacities/limits of Neo4J, and I realized that the 32 billion nod=
e/relationship limit, while it seems large, is not really all that huge. &n=
bsp;Imagine a system (web server, app server, machine) that generates some =
interesting data at a fairly high rate (tweets, web hits, etc.). &nbsp;And =
let's be conservative and assume that each of those instance of data requir=
e a node and 3 relationships. &nbsp;The limiting factor then becomes 10 bil=
lion relationships. &nbsp;If you do the math, that only allows data to be s=
tored for 300 or so events per second for one year, and then you're maxed o=
ut. &nbsp;If the data requires any more than a couple properties, then it b=
ecomes the limiting factor and the capacity shrinks even further.<div><br><=
/div><div>Given that we live in an area of big (and getting bigger) data, a=
re there plans to lift those limitations in future releases?</div></blockqu=
ote>
------=_Part_2208_6663371.1350098685598--

------=_Part_2207_10403927.1350098685598--