8 ms·
MongoDB 1.6 stable released
- jpcx01 16y agoReplica sets look awesome. Can't wait to get them set up in production. Replacing a master/slave setup with this means automatic failover. Looking forward to single server durability in the next one (1.8). Should enable me to convince more clients to add mongo as part of the deployment stack.
- wmwong 16y agoI've also got a master/slave setup and am looking forward to replica sets. It's great to see sharding is production ready. It's now there when I need it.
- hdeshev 16y agoI got a replica pair. Wonder how easy I can migrate it to a replica set.
- patrickaljord 16y agoUpgrading From Replica Pairs or Master/Slave: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Upgrading+to+Replica+Sets http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Upgrading+to+Replica+Set...
- zaph0d 16y agoYay! Great news, just in time for my startup launch. Kudos to MongoDB.
- ritonlajoie 16y agoHi pune :) I was in I2IT some years ago.. nice place !
- barmstrong 16y agoMongo looks like its emerging as the preferred NoSQL platform on Rails at least. As an admittedly rough measure, check out the number of "watchers" on github for each project's leading plugin: 1106 - MongoMapper http://github.com/jnunemaker/mongomapper http://github.com/jnunemaker/mongomapper 536 - CouchREST http://github.com/jchris/couchrest http://github.com/jchris/couchrest 312 - Cassandra http://github.com/fauna/cassandra http://github.com/fauna/cassandra I've only built one rails app with nosql in it, but at first glance at least Mongo seemed the most fully baked of the group.
- ruperp 16y agoDon't forget: 695 - Mongoid http://github.com/durran/mongoid http://github.com/durran/mongoid seems to be the Rails/Mongo project to watch. They got a slick looking homepage too: http://mongoid.org http://mongoid.org Hoping to try using it on my next project.
- ekidd 16y agoWe've used both MongoMapper and Mongoid, and are very happy with Mongoid. It has nice ActiveModel integration, so it works quite well with Rails 3.
- bkudria 16y agoSeconded, using Mongoid over MM here too. It rocks.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mrinterweb 16y agoCurrently the choice between MongoMapper and Mongoid is pretty simple. If you're using Rails 2.3.x, MongoMapper. If you're using Rails 3, Mongoid. The ActiveModel integration is key for Rails 3. Mongoid also has great documentation. MongoMapper does not as much consolidated documentation.
- 16y ago
- samratjp 16y agoDefinitely getting huMongous - looks like it's used by justin.tv and foursquare - good enough for me. By the way, there is a MongoDB shell on the homepage for tryruby.org like mini tutorials => http://www.mongodb.org/ http://www.mongodb.org/ Convinced me enough to get interested and download mongoid as well :-) Hmm, now all there's left is an online hosting solution like Couch.io
- uggedal 16y agohttps://mongohq.com/ https://mongohq.com/
- detst 16y agoThere's https://mongohq.com https://mongohq.com
- malyk 16y agoAnd there's a Heroku add-on that supports it as well.
- thibaut_barrere 16y agoYou can also use MongoHQ directly if you want, from Heroku. I described the steps here: http://blog.logeek.fr/2010/6/29/sinatra-heroku-mongodb-mongohq-notes http://blog.logeek.fr/2010/6/29/sinatra-heroku-mongodb-mongo...
- kchodorow 16y agoAlso Mongo Machine: http://mongomachine.com/ http://mongomachine.com/
- kylemathews 16y agoMany people expect MongoDB to be the standard datastore for high-performance Drupal sites come the Drupal 7 release. See this session at the last drupalcon: http://sf2010.drupal.org/conference/sessions/mongodb-humongous-drupal http://sf2010.drupal.org/conference/sessions/mongodb-humongo... examiner.com is switching to Drupal soonish and has funded most of the work to write the Drupal/MongoDB integration.
- ddorian 16y agoyep but it doesnt work for all the drupal core+modules mostly needed for field storage like: article-body,comment storage, field storage, sessions, cache, queue (most of the stuff) More info: http://drupal.org/project/mongodb http://drupal.org/project/mongodb
- zefhous 16y agoSome great improvements and one step closer to full-text search, which is slated for 1.7.x. http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-380 http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-380
- thibaut_barrere 16y agothanks, just saw this at the bottom which looks interesting: http://github.com/glamkit/mongo-search http://github.com/glamkit/mongo-search
- mumrah 16y agoYou can do pretty neat things with indexes and regexp queries. The mongo-search project is also pretty cool (does Porter stemming, indexing, etc). That said, if you need powerful "full-text searching" I would look to something like Lucene or Xapian.
- leej 16y agoi dont get why do they still stick with agpl. there are a lot more _companies_ built on products with licenses other than agpl, such as, wildly popular apache projects. even microsoft releasing code with apache license but not mongodb guys!
- arst 16y agoThere are successful companies built around all sorts of licensing schemes, but that doesn't mean that you are in a position to say what's best for 10gen's specific situation. Also, all of the official client libraries for mongo are Apache licensed, it's only the core server that is AGPL (which means that you can use mongo in closed source applications - only if you make changes to the actual core database do you have to give those changes back to the community, and even then you still don't have to open source the rest of your application).
- leej 16y agoyou're in no position to tell me what i say! it's simply awkard to use a license like that. also you, yourself, admitted the conflict of client vs server licensing. why this is so? because they want widest usage. they release open source software not because they love developers but because they have to. returning to the point apache or gpl projects have strong commercial backing from big companies to start-ups and knowing this i'm asking there must be a real reason why they did choose agpl over gpl or apache. btw, it's their choice i respect that as well.
- StavrosK 16y agoNobody seems to like my opinion, but MongoDB kept eating my data regularly and silently. My writeups are here: http://www.korokithakis.net/node/116 http://www.korokithakis.net/node/116 http://www.korokithakis.net/node/119 http://www.korokithakis.net/node/119 I would love to answer questions if I could figure out how to easily see my replies on HN :/
- _pius 16y agoAre you using the stable MongoDB?
- StavrosK 16y agoI started with the unstable version and then switched to the stable one, but the problems continued. If I remember correctly, the problems with 1.3 were not significantly more than 1.4.
- thibaut_barrere 16y agoMy understanding is that you used v1.3.3 then switched to v1.4.0, is that right ? Are you experiencing data loss with 1.4.0 ?
- StavrosK 16y agoYes, I mark the point where I switched to 1.4 in my posts (and the same about the 64-bit version). In one case (recently, with 1.4.1 64-bit) I had lost half my data in a crash, and restored from week-old backups only to discover that they were missing back then too. Turns out it was a silent corruption days ago...
- masomenos 16y ago1.3.3 was a development version, as is every odd numbered: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Version+Numbers http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Version+Numbers
- StavrosK 16y ago
- rb2k_ 16y agoAs soon as they feature document level locking (maybe MVCC), I'll happily use it. But locking all databases when a write is occurring is a bit of a downer for large apps that require concurrency.
- masomenos 16y agohttp://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Atomic+Operations http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Atomic+Operations says: "MongoDB supports atomic operations on single documents. MongoDB does not support traditional locking and complex transactions for a number of reasons. . ." What made you think that it was "locking all databases when a write is occurring"?
- robotadam 16y agoMongoDB has a single, global read/write lock for the entire database. So when a write is actually processing, nothing else can happen. In a moderately write-heavy environment, a single slow write can result in pretty bad performance in my experience. Reads can happen at the same time, although there have been problems with not yielding the lock on scans, although there are changes in 1.6 to address that.
- ethangunderson 16y agoThis used to be the case in earlier versions, but now it only issues a server level write lock for atomic updates, reads can still happen. It's not ideal, but it is an improvement.
- rb2k_ 16y agobasically what robotadam said (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1579212 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1579212). To clarify: the database lock is actually for the whole process (-> all databases). I had an especially bad experience with it before they introduced the yielding for long running operations. But even with the yielding, write heavy parallel things still suffer. Especially if your indexes ever get too big and the the system decides to swap in/out part of the index. I've seen 5-6 second inserts with hundreds of writes and reads piling up in the mean time (even without the swap part). If only they had an equivalent of innodb as a storage engine, it would be awesome
- mark_l_watson 16y agoI installed 1.6 on my laptop today, but I will wait a week before starting to update servers. Anyway, I have never had data collections large enough to need sharding, but replica sets look like a much better alternative to frequent snapshots to S3. A year ago I was equally enthusiastic about MongoDB, CouchDB, and Cassandra. However, at least for the modest scale work that I do I don't really need Cassandra, and MongoDB is so easy to work with. I still really like CouchDB but I have never had a customer request its use, so my experience is limited to just using it for my own stuff.
- chuhnk 16y agoI was excited to see a new movement in database schemes that provide a different way of storing data outside a relational database model however a couple things bother me. Firstly calling it nosql, its just complete disrespect of sql and relational databases, could there not have been a more mature response and have it termed as something relevant? Secondly what scares me and I find hilarious is people who so quickly jump onto this movement, moving the entirety of their critical data without understanding the potential downfalls, such as data loss with no warning. As a key value store for non critical data, this kind of thing is brilliant, and data loss can be managed, maybe not tolerated in a high throughput environment where "cache misses" are a concern but otherwise yea its great. Still look at facebook, twitter, friendfeed, who are all still using mysql and scaling out in their own way.
- lelele 16y agoAlready commented about Debian here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1581231 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1581231