3 ms·

The storage-over-fabric latency improvements allow it to work well for software that was not particularly optimized for storage performance, which has obvious b

The storage-over-fabric latency improvements allow it to work well for software that was not particularly optimized for storage performance, which has obvious benefits that I am not arguing. There is a good reason storage-over-fabric has been a popular database deployment model for decades, it does have advantages, but this emerging trend is nothing new nor are the issues that it has. For systems that are highly optimized for storage performance, storage bandwidth tends to be more important than storage latency and that is what is being sacrificed for the sake of disaggregating storage. I see integer factor reductions in workload throughput when deployed on disaggregated storage versus the usually NVMe JBOD, and that factor tracks real-world storage bandwidth pretty well, particularly at high storage densities. At scale, these economics start to matter quite a lot. To be clear, disaggregated storage has no effect on database design generally, seeing as how it has been widely used for decades. It does put an artificial floor on achievable throughput for many workloads due to the bandwidth bottleneck. When people realize this then the pendulum swings the other way (again), so I wouldn't want to overfit for disaggregated storage.

gavinray 4y ago
I didn't realize who I was talking to, just checked the username Would encourage other folks to do the same/read post history
- sitkack 4y ago
  The truthiness of your comments shouldn't change upon who hears them?
  - gavinray 4y ago
    No, I still stand by my opinion that I don't find disaggregated storage controversial But if you're going to take an opinion on databases from someone, jandrewrogers is probably a good person to take them from. Me, on the other hand, I'm just a hobbyist/enthusiast, I've no accolades under my belt and my experience on the engineering end is shy of a year.
    - sitkack 4y ago
      > controversial You and jandrewrogers are using different connotations for this word. Separating compute and storage makes sense when you have already done this like the hyperscalers have. It is good for them but not necessarily for the end user. That it is surprising to you are not doesn't say whether it is a good idea or not. If you make a statement regarding your own opinion vs an expert, then that statement is not referentially transparent, why? When disaggregated storage gets predicate pushdown will it still be disaggregated?

gavinray 4y ago

I didn't realize who I was talking to, just checked the username Would encourage other folks to do the same/read post history

sitkack 4y ago
The truthiness of your comments shouldn't change upon who hears them?
- gavinray 4y ago
  No, I still stand by my opinion that I don't find disaggregated storage controversial But if you're going to take an opinion on databases from someone, jandrewrogers is probably a good person to take them from. Me, on the other hand, I'm just a hobbyist/enthusiast, I've no accolades under my belt and my experience on the engineering end is shy of a year.
  - sitkack 4y ago
    > controversial You and jandrewrogers are using different connotations for this word. Separating compute and storage makes sense when you have already done this like the hyperscalers have. It is good for them but not necessarily for the end user. That it is surprising to you are not doesn't say whether it is a good idea or not. If you make a statement regarding your own opinion vs an expert, then that statement is not referentially transparent, why? When disaggregated storage gets predicate pushdown will it still be disaggregated?