3 ms·
Looks like the fact it automatically scales horizontally: with Aurora, you can only scale vertically (in terms of memory and compute), and DynamoDB requires you
by lostcolony 10y ago
Looks like the fact it automatically scales horizontally: with Aurora, you can only scale vertically (in terms of memory and compute), and DynamoDB requires you to manage throughput yourself (not a big deal; there are services to automatically raise and lower it based on usage).
Without interruption -for a minority of nodes-. Meaning it's using a quorum to achieve consensus. In the event of partition (which looks the same to the remaining nodes as a 'loss'), the majority side will still allow reads/writes. Meaning if you can't talk to the majority, you can't read/write; hence, not AP. If it maintains distributed consistency provided there's a quorum (Raft, Paxos, etc), it's CP.
- falcolas 10y ago> Looks like the fact it automatically scales horizontally I'd be curious then what the cost for doing a lookup of data not on your current node would look like. Do you re-connect to a different node which does have the data, or is it transparently piped back to your current node on request? Is that request broadcast, or is there some form of index maintained on each node of who has what data, how is the cross-talk structured... I'm a bit of a DB nerd, so the answers to these interest me. > Meaning it's using a quorum to achieve consensus. I missed the sly usage of "minority" there. I was expecting a quorum based architecture based on the rest of the documentation. It seems dishonest to imply that there is "no interruption" at all on partition, since that's obviously not the case.
- evanweaver 10y agoThere is no interruption to the majority of the datacenters that remain connected. We can clarify on the site. You can actually still do temporally consistent reads from the disconnected minority, but obviously they won't have the latest updates.