4 ms·
There is often a trade-off between a large distributed central store and several independent ones. The primary con of the former being incidents like this one,
by kodablah 8y ago
There is often a trade-off between a large distributed central store and several independent ones. The primary con of the former being incidents like this one, whereas the con of the latter is separate systems to perform eventually consistent aggregation to support some centralized features adding complexity. I wonder if there is any value in GitHub decentralizing the metadata pipeline. So many of the actions are namespaced that this could be reasonable theoretically, at a large practical cost.
On a related note, I often reach for Cassandra when starting projects knowing that building my application around its limited access approach has data replication benefits in the future. For all the flexibility benefits to devs given by SQL/RDBMSs, there are flexibility downsides.
- contingencies 8y agoAn interesting point. Namespaced data would include anything related to a repo, github pages domain or organization, ie. almost everything. This would therefore all be readily shardable. Non-namespaced are basically just user credentials and settings. However, looking forward in a post-GDPR/China data law world, "network political bloc" based sharding of user data may also be either a regulatory requirement or a worthwhile forward-looking protective measure. (We just had this conversation yesterday at Infinite Food.) One organization I believe global user data sharding goes on at already is Google.