4 ms·
Fdb's main selling point was reliability. But with the proliferation of good raft/paxos implementations that I think is not that much of an advantage anymore.
by rapsey 5y ago
Fdb's main selling point was reliability. But with the proliferation of good raft/paxos implementations that I think is not that much of an advantage anymore.
- manigandham 5y agoThere's a lot more to reliability than just the consensus algo and implementation.
- rapsey 5y agoThe storage engine can be taken off the shelf. Lmdb, rocksdb etc. These are the key parts.
- EGreg 5y agoIs there a proven BFT version of that? RAFT aint it
- rapsey 5y agoBft?
- frakkingcylons 5y agoYou say that like it’s trivial to build a reliable OLTP key value store once you have a correct raft implementation. Never mind real world performance or reliability.
- rapsey 5y agoThe hairiest bits like consensus and storage engines can however be taken off the shelf.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ovaistariq 5y agoThere is more to a database than a raft implementation. A raft implementation would provide data replication between members and leader election. That is just one piece in a distributed database architecture. You then need a storage engine to persist the data, and a query engine to query the data. To be able to scale, the database would most likely be composed of several raft clusters which brings couple of other challenges: - You need a sharding layer so that the queries can be routed to the right cluster - You need an orchestrator to be able to manage these clusters It gets trickier as you try to run transactions across multiple raft clusters. You end up needing to implement 2PC. FoundationDB solves all of the above except for the query engine part (given it is a KV).
- rapsey 5y agoStorage engines can be taken off the shelf. My point is that multiple products solve this problem and they have jepsen tests done. They do not have a unique proposition as much.