4 ms·

You are totally correct that most applications do not require more than a single host to handle all the load, especially given the hosts that are easily availab

by joemag 8y ago

You are totally correct that most applications do not require more than a single host to handle all the load, especially given the hosts that are easily available today. However, the far more common reason to go distributed is redundancy. This is especially true for storage systems, which are the topic of this post, and are by far some of the most complex distributed systems. Loosing a node can mean loosing data. Loosing a large, vertically scaled node, can mean loosing a lot of data. You can mitigate those risks with backups, and cloud APIs of today give customers ability to spin up replacement host in seconds. But then the focus shifts to what will achieve higher availability - a complex distributed system, but one that always runs in a active/active mode. Or a simpler single node system, but one that relies on infrequently exercised and risky path during failures.

ultraluminous 8y ago
There's a substantial difference between High Availability (HA) clustering and Load Sharing (LS) clustering. In an HA cluster a production database can run on a single active node while replicating to a separate standby node. Network partitions will cause a lag in replication but will not present an external consistency issue as there's still only one active node at any time. When the partition is resolved the replication catches up and all is right with the world. Which is to say, you can scale vertically while having both reliability and availability. Hard "distributed systems" problems in databases generally only creep up when you're trying to deploy a multi-active system.
- joemag 8y ago
  Agreed that such setups can be simpler than multi-master replication. Yet, there's still a hard distributed systems challenge even in the active/passive setup like you describe. When a failure occurs, the clients need to agree which host is the master and which host is the slave. And in the presence of network partitions, it can be impossible to say if the old master is dead, or partitioned away, and hence still happily taking writes. The most common way in which such systems failover is by fencing off the old master prior to failover. Which in itself can be a hard distributed problem.
  - ultraluminous 8y ago
    You can also just configure the client to point to a single db node and have an applicative monitoring based update to the db connection string upon failover. Then you're not actually dependent on your client loadbanacing logic. It's very robust and if you follow CQRS also highly available.
    - joemag 8y ago
      Except propagating a configuration update to multiple clients, without a split brain is a hard distributed systems problem :). Especially in the presence of those pesky network partitions.

by joemag 8y ago

ultraluminous 8y ago

There's a substantial difference between High Availability (HA) clustering and Load Sharing (LS) clustering. In an HA cluster a production database can run on a single active node while replicating to a separate standby node. Network partitions will cause a lag in replication but will not present an external consistency issue as there's still only one active node at any time. When the partition is resolved the replication catches up and all is right with the world. Which is to say, you can scale vertically while having both reliability and availability. Hard "distributed systems" problems in databases generally only creep up when you're trying to deploy a multi-active system.

joemag 8y ago
Agreed that such setups can be simpler than multi-master replication. Yet, there's still a hard distributed systems challenge even in the active/passive setup like you describe. When a failure occurs, the clients need to agree which host is the master and which host is the slave. And in the presence of network partitions, it can be impossible to say if the old master is dead, or partitioned away, and hence still happily taking writes. The most common way in which such systems failover is by fencing off the old master prior to failover. Which in itself can be a hard distributed problem.
- ultraluminous 8y ago
  You can also just configure the client to point to a single db node and have an applicative monitoring based update to the db connection string upon failover. Then you're not actually dependent on your client loadbanacing logic. It's very robust and if you follow CQRS also highly available.
  - joemag 8y ago
    Except propagating a configuration update to multiple clients, without a split brain is a hard distributed systems problem :). Especially in the presence of those pesky network partitions.