4 ms·

Facebook is how far you can go.

• jimbokun 9y ago
  Right, but that means writing your own storage engine [1] to get to their scale, right? [1] https://code.facebook.com/posts/190251048047090/myrocks-a-space-and-write-optimized-mysql-database/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/190251048047090/myrocks-a-sp...
  • tyingq 9y ago
    "While there are some databases at Facebook that will still use InnoDB, we're in the process of migrating to MyRocks on our user database (UDB) tier" So, still impressive to me. That custom storage engine is just for the "user database" tier. Given their user count, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
    • felixhandte 9y ago
      MyRocks is intended to be a general purpose storage engine for MySQL. It was not built specifically for the UDB tier.
      • tyingq 9y ago
        Right, but "some databases at Facebook that will still use InnoDB" was a direct quote. The context being that InnoDB got FB pretty far, and that UDB appeared to be the first area where any pain was notable enough to need something else.
        • evanelias 9y ago
          It's not really a question of InnoDB "pain" though; Facebook's primary motivation for MyRocks is substantially better compression rate than InnoDB. It adds up to very compelling cost savings at FB scale. This comparison is a bit apples to oranges anyway, with respect to the original article :) JFG's post was talking about extreme cases within a single MySQL instance, whereas Facebook is extremely heavily sharded.
          • tyingq 9y ago
            "pain" is just shorthand for whatever drove the switch. Was just trying to reinforce the point that MySQL gets you pretty far.