That's actually a toy example. Most real data would probably have more tags and longer measurement names. Obviously that's much more than 3 bytes.
We persist that to disk in a write ahead log (WAL) and then later we can do compression and compactions on the data to squeeze it down to 3 bytes per point. However, that takes more than a single write against the disk to get to.
Run a load test against it. See how much network bandwidth you can use. See what your HD utilization looks like. My guess is you'll be surprised by what you see.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ...
by switch007 on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:44PM
(#11037503)
And about the bugs...? My experience with 0.8 and 0.9 was somewhat sub-par. I personally am awaiting 1.x and it wouldn't surprise me if others were too.
The input is actually much higher than that. Data points over the network look like this:
cpu_idle,host=serverA,region=uswest value=23.0 1454617920
That's actually a toy example. Most real data would probably have more tags and longer measurement names. Obviously that's much more than 3 bytes.
We persist that to disk in a write ahead log (WAL) and then later we can do compression and compactions on the data to squeeze it down to 3 bytes per point. However, that takes more than a single write against the disk to get to.
Run a load test against it. See how much network bandwidth you can use. See what your HD utilization looks like. My guess is you'll be surprised by what you see.