Re:Building CockroachDB on top of RocksDB
by nicolast on Friday January 18, 2019 @08:49PM
(#18944759)
> If you verify that your hardware is unstable, how can you expect the software not to fail and corrupt data?
No such thing as 'stable hardware' at scale.
Re:Building CockroachDB on top of RocksDB
by viraptor on Saturday January 19, 2019 @07:39AM
(#18946731)
Ok, but then there's also no such thing as no corruption at scale.
If you accept imperfect hardware, you will get errors written to the drive. A single node of a database will get corruption by definition in that case. We're taking about RocksDB specifically here, so it is only one processing node.
How did you expect it to behave instead?
Re:Building CockroachDB on top of RocksDB
by StreamBright on Saturday January 19, 2019 @02:42AM
(#18945865)
There is, just the error rate is different between a SAN backed openstack cluster vs AWS for example. EC2 is reliable compare to what hw just described above.
This sounds like a weird complaint to be honest. If you verify that your hardware is unstable, how can you expect the software not to fail and corrupt data?
> Also, read the Riak documentation and you'll find the corruption recovery documentation among other hints at common failures and limitations.
I'm not sure how that's a negative thing. You think about and document recovery even if you don't expect things to fail.