5 ms·
Yeah... Until people more to Oracle shared nothing RAC and then... problem solved. Databases can scale. Just that the ones which do currently cost on the order
by newt0311 18y ago
Yeah... Until people more to Oracle shared nothing RAC and then... problem solved.
Databases can scale. Just that the ones which do currently cost on the order of several million USD/yr. When that changes, the stigma associated with them will go.
PS. Well designed concurrency (ie. PostgreSQL MVCC and not MySQL MyISAM) does not create false data dependencies unless those are in the table constraints.
- wmf 18y agoMaybe you haven't heard: In Web 2.0, only free databases exist. Clustered relational databases can't exist, because if they could, the open source community would have already written one. Can I interest you in yet another sharding tutorial?
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- briansmith 18y agoRAC is not shared-nothing. It is exactly the opposite.
- newt0311 18y agoRAC shares the disks (connected through some other technique) but the remaining system is completely shared nothing and to my knowledge, the disks can be spread out over as many servers as needed.
- JulianMorrison 18y agoJust looking at the design of RAC, you're still just increasing the n at which it stops scaling. Anything with a bottleneck (in this case, the shared disk image and the concurrent modification algorithms) is going to wedge for some n.