Couchbase
  • Why NoSQL?
  • Couchbase Server
  • Download
  • Resources
  • Careers
Home | Forums | Couchbase | Couchbase Server 2.0

General Observations of 2.0 on aws

2 replies [Last post]
  • Login or register to post comments
Tue, 01/08/2013 - 12:38
chrhlnd
Offline
Joined: 01/04/2013
Groups: None

beam.smp is acting very volatile. With a default bucket and no data and no traffic it pings the cpu anywhere from 3-10%. Running a load script (creating keys,reading them back) the cpu time spikes and causes AWS to suspend the instance, granted this suspend behavior is effected by your instance size, but its just not promising in terms of scaling. The suspending seems to make things worse, it causes the beam process to stay high for a very long time. Then it being high causes more suspend. You can see the cycle continue for a long time, it takes a while for everything to get stable. This is with no new traffic added to the situtation.

As a comparison couch 1.8.1 even under the highest load running along side a webserver on the same instance the max cpu for beam and memcache seems to be 4% beam will take 2% and memcached will take 2%, the rest of the cpu under load is going to python processes serving the web requests.

According to the new feature page it looks like a lot of things have changed. It may be that 2.0 is better on real hardware, but I wanted to chime in for AWS users. I'm also relatively new in using couch, but for the time being it looks like we're going to launch with 1.8. The big feature for us on 2.0 would be the views, KV stores in general aren't fast at keeping concurrently active lists.

Initial test with a single node, I did another test with 2 nodes but I observed the same behavior.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 09:24
tgrall
Offline
Joined: 09/05/2012
Groups: None

I will provide some feedback on your general comment, but could you please indicate:
- operating system
- sizing of your machine and couchbase cluster

Regards

__________________

Tug
@tgrall

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 11:16
chrhlnd
Offline
Joined: 01/04/2013
Groups: None

For dev I'm running things on a micro. I tested on a medium to see if it behaved any better, but it didn't help too much other then more cpu time. I'm thinking this probably has to do with the harddrive in these instances being just really network shares. I haven't tested on large or extra large.

http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/

Looking at the description they give the bigger instances better i/o rating. Maybe the disk is closer to the cpu in that case?

As far is distro, I'm using there centos dirivitive think it was centos 5

kernel package is
kernel-3.2.34-55.46.amzn1.x86_64

from one of my micros.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Login
  • Register

Company

  • About Us
  • Leadership
  • Customers
  • Partners
  • Contact Us

Product

  • Couchbase Server
  • Couchbase SDKs
  • Use Cases
  • Documentation
  • Forums

Open Source

  • Couchbase Project
  • Couchbase vs. CouchDB

Commercial

  • Subscriptions & Support
  • Training & Services

News

  • Blog
  • Newsletter
  • Press Releases
  • Buzz

Follow Us

    
  • Customer Login
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Trademark Policy
  • Site Map

© 2013 COUCHBASE All rights reserved.

Sign in to Couchbase Community

close
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
You are logging into the Forums, Wiki and Issue Tracker