4 ms·
I struggle to think of any similarities, actually. I think DynamoDB's design makes it clear that the era of decentralized architecture/eventual consistency at A
by senderista 7y ago
I struggle to think of any similarities, actually. I think DynamoDB's design makes it clear that the era of decentralized architecture/eventual consistency at Amazon has come and gone. DHTs just don't make sense in the data center.
- wikibob 7y agoCan you elaborate on this? Do you mean that amazon is tending towards strong or externalizable consistency now? I’ve always noticed AWS products tend towards eventual consistency, and Google Cloud offerings are almost all strongly consistent. For example S3 is eventually consistent for read after write (if it’s not the first write). Google cloud storage is strongly consistent for read after all writes.
- senderista 7y agoI think the goal is for S3 to "eventually" be strongly consistent. I heard one of S3's designers say that they shouldn't have opted for eventual consistency in retrospect.
- grogenaut 7y agoNot sure what you mean, DDB provides both strong and eventual consistency, now in 2 fashions with transactions. 3 if you include cross region replication. There's definitely still a DHT sitting under there.
- senderista 7y agoNo, it's something like a hash-partitioned primary-backup-replicated distributed database. S3 is much closer to a DHT.
- manigandham 7y agoThere's no real difference between a DHT (distributed hash table) and a hash-partitioned distributed database. It's the same concept. Apache Cassandra is considered an implementation of a DHT.
- takeda 7y agoDynamoDB is decentralized same with S3, it's just abstracted from the user.