←back to thread

Open Riak – open, modern Riak fork

(github.com)
219 points amarsahinovic | 2 comments | 19 Nov 24 20:29 UTC | HN request time: 2.394s | source
Show context
tibbar ◴[19 Nov 24 21:09 UTC] No.42188120[source]▶
I've never met an engineering team that used Riak, but it is used heavily as an example technology in Kleppmann's 'Designing Data Intensive Applications'. (I would say, informally, it's usually the example of the "other way" as opposed to other more well-known databases.) This does make me wonder what became of it, why it didn't take off.
replies(8): >>42188162 #>>42188238 #>>42188584 #>>42188647 #>>42188675 #>>42188741 #>>42191594 #>>42191757 #
1. rmetzler ◴[20 Nov 24 08:15 UTC] No.42191757[source]▶
> I've never met an engineering team that used Riak

I was part of a recent cloud migration. Part of on-prem (though unfortunately not migrated by my team) were this very first Riak Cluster I saw in production.

The engineering team used it as "kind of S3" for images, with 3 to 5 PHP scripts providing an interface to Riak and imageMagic. It seemed to me like a good abstraction and I think the migration to S3 was mostly painless.

Other than that I only had contact with Riak at university around 15 years ago, when we tested cluster setups of several NoSQL databases and tried to manually introduce faults to see if they could heal. Riak passed our test at that time, MongoDB didn't.

replies(1): >>42206506 #
2. Adkron ◴[21 Nov 24 17:23 UTC] No.42206506[source]▶
I've talked to some people who use Riak as an S3 and reported that their reasoning for sticking to it is 2 to 4 orders of magnitude faster than S3. This blew my mind, but then they showed me 20ms response times from their Riak cluster and 2-second response times from S3. Now, I think these aren't standard, and in my experience, I'd say Riak is more like a single order of magnitude faster.