6 ms·

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that’s the talk I was referring to. I suppose I could try my own benchmark out tbf. I’m curious to see what it can do on today’s ha

by sgarland 10mo ago

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that’s the talk I was referring to. I suppose I could try my own benchmark out tbf. I’m curious to see what it can do on today’s hardware. I would think it’s mostly network-bound for Raft consensus, though the 10x ping time increase you demonstrated without an appreciable drop in writes suggests it’s more complex than that.

otoolep 10mo ago
Yes, fast networks matter. I did introduce Queued Writes[1] since that talk, allowing you to trade off performance versus immediate durability. It may interest you -- network is much less of a factor then, and you should get a 10-100x increase in throughput. [1] https://rqlite.io/docs/api/queued-writes/ https://rqlite.io/docs/api/queued-writes/
- sgarland 10mo ago
  Unfortunately for the application I was looking at using rqlite for, the possibility of data loss - however remote - was not an acceptable trade-off.
  - otoolep 10mo ago
    OK, well, you could try client-side batching too, if you can. That will also improve performance substantially. Otherwise, if you try with more modern networks and disks, let me know what you see.