2 ms·
rqlite author here. Anything else you can tell me about why you decided against it? Just simpler, as you say, to avoid a distributed system when you can (someth
by otoolep 4y ago
rqlite author here. Anything else you can tell me about why you decided against it? Just simpler, as you say, to avoid a distributed system when you can (something I understand).
- tptacek 4y agoWe like rqlite a lot. There's some comments in your issue tracker from Jerome about it at the time. The decision wasn't against rqlite as a piece of software so much as it was us deliberately deciding not to introduce more Raft into our architecture; any place there is Raft, we're concerned we'll essentially need to train our whole on-call rotation on how to handle issues. The annoying thing about global consensus is that the operational problems tend to be global as well; we had an outage last night (correlated disk failure on 3 different machines!) in Chicago, and it slowed down deploys all the way to Sydney, essentially because of invariants maintained by a global Raft consensus and fed in part from malfunctioning machines. I think rqlite would make a lot of sense for us for applications where we run multiple regional clusters; it's just that our problems today tend to be global. We're not just looking for opportunities to rip Raft out of our stack; we're also trying to build APIs that regionalize nicely. In nicely-regionalized, contained settings, rqlite might work a treat for us.