jm + riak + voldemort   9

If Eventual Consistency Seems Hard, Wait Till You Try MVCC
ex-Percona MySQL wizard Baron Schwartz, noting that MVCC as implemented in common SQL databases is not all that simple or reliable compared to big bad NoSQL Eventual Consistency:
Since I am not ready to assert that there’s a distributed system I know to be better and simpler than eventually consistent datastores, and since I certainly know that InnoDB’s MVCC implementation is full of complexities, for right now I am probably in the same position most of my readers are: the two viable choices seem to be single-node MVCC and multi-node eventual consistency. And I don’t think MVCC is the simpler paradigm of the two.
nosql  concurrency  databases  mysql  riak  voldemort  eventual-consistency  reliability  storage  baron-schwartz  mvcc  innodb  postgresql 
december 2014 by jm
Great quote from Voldemort author Jay Kreps
"Reading papers: essential. Slavishly implementing ideas you read: not necessarily a good idea. Trust me, I wrote an Amazon Dynamo clone."

Later in the discussion, on complex conflict resolution logic (as used in Dynamo, Voldemort, and Riak):

"I reviewed 200 Voldemort stores, 190 used default lww conflict resolution. 10 had custom logic, all 10 of which had bugs." --

(although IMO I'd prefer complex resolution to non-availability, when AP is required)
voldemort  jay-kreps  dynamo  cap-theorem  ap  riak  papers  lww  conflict-resolution  distcomp 
november 2014 by jm
Smart Clients, haproxy, and Riak
Good, thought-provoking post on good client library approaches for complex client-server systems, particularly distributed stores like Voldemort or Riak. I'm of the opinion that a smart client lib is unavoidable, and in fact essential, since the clients are part of the distributed system, personally.
clients  libraries  riak  voldemort  distsys  haproxy  client-server  storage 
october 2014 by jm
Gilt Tech
Gilt ran a stress-test of Riak to replace Voldemort (I think) in a shadow stack, with good results:
Riak’s strong performance suggests that, should we pursue implementation, it will withstand our unique traffic needs and prove reliable. As for the Gilt-Basho team’s strong performance: It was amazing that we were able to accomplish so much in just a week’s time! Thanks again to Seth and Steve for making this possible.
riak  testing  shadow-stack  voldemort  storage  gilt 
september 2013 by jm
Alex Feinberg's response to Damien Katz' anti-Dynamoish/pro-Couchbase blog post
Insightful response, worth bookmarking. (the original post is at ).
while you are saving on read traffic (online reads only go to the master), you are now decreasing availability (contrary to your stated goal), and increasing system complexity.
You also do hurt performance by requiring all writes and reads to be serialized through a single node: unless you plan to have a leader election whenever the node fails to meet a read SLA (which is going to result a disaster -- I am speaking from personal experience), you will have to accept that you're bottlenecked by a single node. With a Dynamo-style quorum (for either reads or writes), a single straggler will not reduce whole-cluster latency.
The core point of Dynamo is low latency, availability and handling of all kinds of partitions: whether clean partitions (long term single node failures), transient failures (garbage collection pauses, slow disks, network blips, etc...), or even more complex dependent failures.
The reality, of course, is that availability is neither the sole, nor the principal concern of every system. It's perfect fine to trade off availability for other goals -- you just need to be aware of that trade off.
cap  distributed-databases  databases  quorum  availability  scalability  damien-katz  alex-feinberg  partitions  network  dynamo  riak  voldemort  couchbase 
may 2013 by jm
Riak, CAP, and eventual consistency
Good (albeit draft) write-up of the implications of CAP, allow_mult, and last_write_wins conflict-resolution policies in Riak:
As Brewer's CAP theorem established, distributed systems have to make hard choices. Network partition is inevitable. Hardware failure is inevitable. When a partition occurs, a well-behaved system must choose its behavior from a spectrum of options ranging from "stop accepting any writes until the outage is resolved" (thus maintaining absolute consistency) to "allow any writes and worry about consistency later" (to maximize availability). Riak leans toward the availability end of the spectrum, but allows the operator and even the developer to tune read and write requests to better meet the business needs for any given set of data.
riak  cap  eventual-consistency  distcomp  distributed-systems  partition  last-write-wins  voldemort  allow_mult 
april 2013 by jm

Copy this bookmark: