2 ms·

There is at least one basic factual error in this blog post, which makes me discount the whole thing. "But if you will use it, keep in mind that [InfluxDB] use

There is at least one basic factual error in this blog post, which makes me discount the whole thing. "But if you will use it, keep in mind that [InfluxDB] uses Bolt as its data backend." Simply not true. The author seems to have confused the storage that Raft consensus uses for metadata with that used for the time series data. InfluxDB has its own custom data storage layer for time series data, and has had so for many years. A simple glance at the InfluxDB docs would make this clear. (I was once part of the core database team at InfluxDB and have edited my comment for clarity.)

rducksherlock 2y ago
Hey! The author of the article here. Thanks for pointing out at this part of the text. Please note that English is clearly not my native language. Sometimes, I may structure sentences in ambiguous ways due to grammatical or other errors in my writing. I'm not sure if this is the case. To avoid further misinformation, let me elaborate what I meant to say in the paragraph you have mentioned. It's quoted below for other readers' comfort. > But if you will use it, keep in mind that it uses Bolt as its data backend. The same Bolt used in the HashiCorp Vault integrated Raft storage and in etcd. Hence, it may need some maintenance too. More specifically, database compaction. As per InfluxDB documentation, "InfluxDB uses BoltDB to store data including organization and user information, UI data, REST resources, and other key value data." (see here: https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v2/reference/config-options/#bolt-path https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v2/reference/config-opt...). To me that's exactly what a data backend means. This piece of software uses different backends for different types of data if I got it right. Since I haven't had any experience with InfluxDB itself, it's not clear to me whether its BoltDB storage may (or may not) need maintenance. In my opinion it's just a little detail that may be helpful for some people, so I mentioned it. It's possible for me to redact this part of the text for more clarification, but that information by itself isn't very important to make me do that. > There is at least one basic factual error in this blog post, which makes me discount the whole thing. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why all of us filter and interpret information based on our experience accumulated through years of living on this planet. Such a radical change of perception to a large piece of information caused by a small mistake is not always necessary. Again, thanks for being interested in making corrections! Have a great rest of your day!

rducksherlock 2y ago

Hey! The author of the article here. Thanks for pointing out at this part of the text. Please note that English is clearly not my native language. Sometimes, I may structure sentences in ambiguous ways due to grammatical or other errors in my writing. I'm not sure if this is the case. To avoid further misinformation, let me elaborate what I meant to say in the paragraph you have mentioned. It's quoted below for other readers' comfort. > But if you will use it, keep in mind that it uses Bolt as its data backend. The same Bolt used in the HashiCorp Vault integrated Raft storage and in etcd. Hence, it may need some maintenance too. More specifically, database compaction. As per InfluxDB documentation, "InfluxDB uses BoltDB to store data including organization and user information, UI data, REST resources, and other key value data." (see here: https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v2/reference/config-options/#bolt-path https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v2/reference/config-opt...). To me that's exactly what a data backend means. This piece of software uses different backends for different types of data if I got it right. Since I haven't had any experience with InfluxDB itself, it's not clear to me whether its BoltDB storage may (or may not) need maintenance. In my opinion it's just a little detail that may be helpful for some people, so I mentioned it. It's possible for me to redact this part of the text for more clarification, but that information by itself isn't very important to make me do that. > There is at least one basic factual error in this blog post, which makes me discount the whole thing. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why all of us filter and interpret information based on our experience accumulated through years of living on this planet. Such a radical change of perception to a large piece of information caused by a small mistake is not always necessary. Again, thanks for being interested in making corrections! Have a great rest of your day!