Responses to Dan Weinreb's comments of February 1, 2011

I am responding to Dan Weinreb's comments to my post Comments in response to Don Anderson's 3n+1 benchmark with another blog entry because this was too long to post as a reply.

Comments in response to Don Anderson's 3n+1 benchmark

I am thrilled that Don Anderson has responded to a benchmarking problem I proposed aimed at apples to apples benchmarks of databases and platforms.

Results for 3n+1 Benchmark version 2 for GT.M

3n+1 NoSQL/Key-value/Schema-free/Sche... - version 2

Problem statement of the second version of the benchmark.  An earlier version of this benchmark problem statement can be found at
http://ksbhaskar.blogspot.com/2010/02/3n1-nosqlkey-valueschema-freesche.html

Motivation

This is an attempt to create a benchmark for apples to apples comparisons of databases that are generally described as NoSQL, key-value, schema-free or schema-less databases.  The goals are to create a benchmark that:

• is simple to understand and code in most programming languages;
• performs a non-trivial amount of representative activity - reads and updates, access contention, recovery, etc.; and
• generates results that can be easily replicated and verified by others.

Encrypting Partitions on GNU/Linux

Motivation

Encrypting partitions helps protect against unauthorized access to data in the event the computer hardware is physically lost or stolen. The technique described here relies on the ability of the Linux kernel to:

1. Create an a map of a real device or a logical volume.
2. Create an encrypted block device
   

Enhanced 3n+1 Benchmark for GT.M - 2010-02-28

3n+1 NoSQL/Key-Value/Schema-Free/Schema-Less Database Benchmark

Motivation

This is an attempt to create a benchmark for apples to apples comparisons of databases that are generally described as NoSQL, key-value, schema-free or schema-less databases.  The goals are to create a benchmark that:

• is simple to understand and code - ideally, a page of code or less in most programming languages;
• performs a non-trivial amount of representative activity - reads and updates, access contention, recovery, etc.; and
• generates results that can be easily replicated and verified by others.