From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:49:12 -0500
Local: Fri, Nov 9 2012 9:49 am
Subject: Re: [project-voldemort] KV store w/ persistence
Interesting. I assume that you need access patterns that span the entire keyset at random for the most part?
When I was evaluating the storage options years ago, BDB was the best and my usage pattern was such that for activity in a given window, the active keyset was a mostly bounded subset of the full keyset. (Use case was e.g. shopping cart at a flash sale website - while there are millions of customers, the group that shows up any given day at sale start is much smaller and activity tends to be continuous - they show up, hang out, then go away. So the result was things fit very well in the BDB cache and performance was good. What I really liked about BDB also was that it was self-maintaining. We never had to do any ops maintenance on the cluster. We put up three clusters and they only came down when we moved colos .
I'm interested in your plugin :)
I guess my question for Marc was why he didn't want to use BDB - he mentioned a love of file-based and BDB is file based...
Thanks
geir
On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Sunny Gleason <sunny.glea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me, it is due to the cliff function that BDB goes
> off of when the data set goes out of RAM -- I've been > placing a higher value on consistent latency than raw > throughput. > The BDB issues hark back to the original Dynamo
> I wrote the InnoDB plugin because InnoDB has better
> http://www.slideshare.net/sunnygleason/accelerating-nosql
> Granted, it sacrifices throughput for stability. I have it on
> -Sunny
> On 11/9/12, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand the BDB resistance.... can you explain?
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Sunny Gleason <sunny.glea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For your use case, I might consider leveldb or persistit.
>>> https://github.com/dain/leveldb
>>> I'd try as hard as possible not to embed voldemort in a
>>> All the best,
>>> -Sunny
>>> On 11/9/12, Marc Logemann <marc.logem...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> we are checking alternatives for our current redis way of doing this. We
>>>> have heavy writes, not so heavy reads on our redis instance. We are
>>>> go. So we evaluated a lot of projects. Voldemort comes nearest in terms
>>>> May i ask some questions to this group because we really need to get
>>>> - We certainly dont want to use BDB. Is there an alternative (file
>>>> Thanks a lot for clearification. If we would settle on Voldemort, our
>>>> sane decission how to go on and since its for two of our products, it
>>>> be a long lasting decission ;-)
>>>> Marc
>>>> --
>>> --
>> --
> -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||