Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by idibidiartists on Saturday June 10, 2017 @01:29AM
(#14526277)
<<
or FoundationDB presumably has
>>
You mean FaunaDB?
Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by elvinyung on Saturday June 10, 2017 @01:38AM
(#14526292)
FoundationDB was the proto-CockroachDB (or rather, CockroachDB is essentially a re-attempt at building FoundationDB). It was an early attempt at building a NewSQL database. (NewSQL per se, i.e. not counting parallel databases from the pre-NoSQL age, like Gamma [1], Volcano [2] and Grace [3], which share many of the same design principles.)
FoundationDB was acquhired by Apple, but its failure is generally attributed to a poorly-performing SQL layer: https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-...
[1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90....
[2] https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b...
[3] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e...
Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by Scaevolus on Saturday June 10, 2017 @01:42AM
(#14526302)
No, FoundationDB which was posting some VERY impressive numbers before being acquired by Apple in March 2015.
Here they were doing 15M writes/s on 32 16-core servers, at a rate of 30,000 writes/s/core: http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.founda...
FaunaDB managed 120,000 writes per second on 15 machines. https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performa...
(Yes, not equivalent benchmarks, but that's still a 50x difference in magnitude.)
Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by idibidiartists on Saturday June 10, 2017 @11:43AM
(#14527727)
Down voted for asking a question? The system is definitely broke in such instances.
Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by acdha on Saturday June 10, 2017 @12:03PM
(#14527808)
You worded the question in a way suggested you thought the previous commenter was wrong. That reads like either being a FaunaFB fanboy or not taking time to learn about Foundation, both of which will reliably attract downvotes. Had you worded it differently I doubt you'd be getting downvoted.
Re:Comdb2 – Bloomberg's distributed RDBMS under Apache 2
by idibidiartists on Saturday June 10, 2017 @04:08PM
(#14528962)
So essentially the HN commenting UX is one of walking on egg shells.
Schema changes happen lazily, with old rows being rewritten on the next update, and a background job doing bulk rewriting.
Scalability: "While reads scale in a nearly linear manner as cluster size increases, writes have a more conservative level of scaling with an absolute limit. The offloading of portions of work (essentially all the WHERE clause predicate evaluations) across the cluster does help scale writes beyond what a single machine can do. Ultimately, this architecture does saturate on a single machine’s ability to process the low level bplogs."
This doesn't provide the horizontal scaling that Spanner does, CockroachDB aims at, or FoundationDB presumably has.
[1]: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p1377-scotti.pdf