4 ms·

These folks disagree with you. There are many more behind them. http://gigaom.com/cloud/clustrix-lifts-the-curtain-on-early-database-customers/ http://gigaom.c

by sergei 16y ago

These folks disagree with you. There are many more behind them. http://gigaom.com/cloud/clustrix-lifts-the-curtain-on-early-database-customers/ http://gigaom.com/cloud/clustrix-lifts-the-curtain-on-early-... And plenty of folks use MySQL (and PogreSQL to a much lesser extent). You just can't scale those.

space-monkey 16y ago
Last time I heard, twitter still uses MySQL for the statuses (tweets) table. They did have a plan to migrate to Cassandra, but didn't go all the way through with it. So I find it hard to agree with "you just can't scale those". It may be a lot of work, but for some applications you can scale them. Edit: twitter cassandra link (don't know if this is the latest): http://engineering.twitter.com/2010/07/cassandra-at-twitter-today.html http://engineering.twitter.com/2010/07/cassandra-at-twitter-...
- ethangunderson 16y ago
  It's worth noting that Twitter has built a lot on top of MySQL to get to the scale they're at. Take FlockDB for example, https://github.com/twitter/flockdb https://github.com/twitter/flockdb So I guess that statement should be written as "you can't scale with just those". :)
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
You can't scale MySQL/PostgreSQL? Care to expand? (Although Facebook's schema is likely an abomination flying in the face of every normalized form, it does run on MySQL. And it's not like throwing PostgreSQL on a big box doesn't go far.)
foobarbazetc 16y ago
I can scale PostgresSQL pretty well, thanks. PostgreSQL is used on some of the biggest databases in the world, but no one's going to tell you which. :) Your benchmark is pretty much irrelevant because Clustrix sells hardware appliances, not the software standalone. Edit: That's not to say MongoDB didn't fail your benchmark. But the issues you highlight (single mutex) are known. Test against a real database and your results don't look that impressive for a 10 node setup. All that said, Clustrix looks great. Just make it available sans-hardware.

by sergei 16y ago

space-monkey 16y ago

Last time I heard, twitter still uses MySQL for the statuses (tweets) table. They did have a plan to migrate to Cassandra, but didn't go all the way through with it. So I find it hard to agree with "you just can't scale those". It may be a lot of work, but for some applications you can scale them. Edit: twitter cassandra link (don't know if this is the latest): http://engineering.twitter.com/2010/07/cassandra-at-twitter-today.html http://engineering.twitter.com/2010/07/cassandra-at-twitter-...

ethangunderson 16y ago
It's worth noting that Twitter has built a lot on top of MySQL to get to the scale they're at. Take FlockDB for example, https://github.com/twitter/flockdb https://github.com/twitter/flockdb So I guess that statement should be written as "you can't scale with just those". :)

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

You can't scale MySQL/PostgreSQL? Care to expand? (Although Facebook's schema is likely an abomination flying in the face of every normalized form, it does run on MySQL. And it's not like throwing PostgreSQL on a big box doesn't go far.)

foobarbazetc 16y ago

I can scale PostgresSQL pretty well, thanks. PostgreSQL is used on some of the biggest databases in the world, but no one's going to tell you which. :) Your benchmark is pretty much irrelevant because Clustrix sells hardware appliances, not the software standalone. Edit: That's not to say MongoDB didn't fail your benchmark. But the issues you highlight (single mutex) are known. Test against a real database and your results don't look that impressive for a 10 node setup. All that said, Clustrix looks great. Just make it available sans-hardware.