A paragraph from an unrelated email this morning helped solidify my thinking around where we could potentially end up going wrt to performance and scalability of RHQ... "MongoDB, Membase, Memcache allow data flexibility and cloud scale. These are not old-sk00l Oracle databases that get slow with lots of data. These scale horizontally and are enabled by the scaling of a PaaS. We do of course have MySQL for the bits of data that aren't going to go through the roof. " If users want to manage 1m metrics per minute, or 1m events per minute or 1m alerts per minute they are going to need N machines across which to scale the load. But at the same time there are probably going to be areas of the data model that just will never need to scale like that e.g. plugins, potentially the entire inventory (the requirements for reading/writing 1m resources could be very different to 30m *new* metrics every 12hours) and for that data something like a Postgres instance maybe sufficient. As long as we can also scale down the whole architecture to a single box for those people with smaller environments and still have a reliable and performant system. BTW I'm not talking about making RHQ into a SaaS here or anything PaaS related right now. Just how to build a system that users could install on their own hardware that would scale in a close to linear fashion. e.g. If people want to manage an environment twice their current size, they call up Dell and order N more machines, set them up and install RHQ. One further point, I think even if N can get quite large, I think users would still see that as a reasonable trade-off for near linear scalability (assuming that's achievable). If people have a really big environment they are more likely to invest in a larger monitoring/management infrastructure. More thoughts please... Thanks Charles _______________________________________________ rhq-devel mailing list rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel