News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kev009 on Thursday February 04, 2016 @09:29PM (#11039005)
I don't have a lot of time to spare on this and we've found a viable option so I won't be using influx any time soon. I can help you with access to my production system if you are interested and as you are watching arrange for between 1k and 10k hosts (for 2 - 20 values per second)
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by pauldix on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:03AM (#11039577)
If you found something else that works for you, that's great. I'm sorry that InfluxDB didn't work for you when you tried it, but we'll continue to improve and build. My feeling is that this release is a significant milestone in our evolution. We'll see how people react over the coming weeks after actually using it.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by monkpit on Thursday February 04, 2016 @10:49PM (#11039277)
I'm sad that pauldix disappears when the comments get direct like this - I've used influxdb at smaller scales and I'm genuinely curious to see responses to a few different threads going on in this discussion. But they are left without a reply as of now.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by pauldix on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:02AM (#11039573)
I disappeared because I can't spend all evening responding to every person on the internet that may be having trouble with our software. An offer to SSH into a system that isn't running Influx and trying to troubleshoot some ambiguous problem isn't direct.

We have people that have given us useful troubleshooting information that we've helped (and have helped us improve InfluxDB). Constructive criticism with an offer to help us improve is the best.

While I'd love to trace down every problem for everyone on the internet, my time on this planet is limited.

As for your concerns about if it scales, we'll try to put out more benchmarks and test code over the coming weeks. For reference, we built a tool for stress testing that you can see here:

https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb/tree/master/cmd/influ...

You'll have to make your own decisions.

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kev009 on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:28AM (#11039701)
We would install Influx, as a go app that is fairly trivial and it speaks the same collection protocol...

As a random problem on the internet, this is the workload you should expect from any midsize business and probably something your company would like to target for revenue. Good luck.

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kev009 on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:07AM (#11039604)
This is why I said they are great at marketing. There's really little value in working with me, but at least responding while the article is front page makes it look like they are responsive and looking into issues.

Maybe they can sink a big user/customer that's willing to gut through all the pain of helping to make an operation data store.. someone in this thread mentioned mongo and it sounds very familiar.

I'm wondering if I'm being too negative but the flip side of this is that it caused me and others a lot of stress, lost face, and time. Most developers and operators are overworked already so I am trying to save some pain since the blog post makes it seem like everything is fine and awesome.

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by JulianWasTaken on Friday February 05, 2016 @01:16AM (#11039862)
This is a very odd thread.

I'm in no way involved in influx, we're just evaluating it, but this entire thread reads like complete FUD at the moment, so it's odd that you're calling out a maintainer or whoever pauldix is for "disappearing".

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kev009 on Friday February 05, 2016 @02:22AM (#11040087)
If you're just now evaluating it, you might not realize the history behind the project. It's more backlash than FUD.. infrastructure people don't like to be jerked around by marketing tactics any more than we already are. At various times each of the storage engines was promoted as the bee's knees LevelDB -> BoltDB -> bz1 -> tsm1. That kind of fumbling speaks for itself. It's strange for a high profile investment (including YC). Founded/funded around the same time contrast historically to FoundationDB.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by misframer on Friday February 05, 2016 @09:21AM (#11041534)
> Founded/funded around the same time contrast historically to FoundationDB.

FoundationDB was in stealth mode for at least three years before they launched their closed Alpha release, so perhaps this isn't a fair comparison.

(I was an intern at FoundationDB during summer 2012.)

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by monkpit on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:08AM (#11042289)
At the time I wrote the comment, there were direct questions left unanswered for 6 hours, while replies were given to other less-interesting comments in the meantime - that to me looks like someone ignoring something. He came back, that's great!
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kylemathews on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:16AM (#11039642)
He replied an hour ago...
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by monkpit on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:09AM (#11042312)
An hour after I said that, yeah. But not in the like 6 hours prior while he was answering other stuff.