4 ms·

So, the general architecture described here is solid, and I support it, but I take issue with the "Lakebase" naming thing. Disaggregated storage and disaggrega

So, the general architecture described here is solid, and I support it, but I take issue with the "Lakebase" naming thing. Disaggregated storage and disaggregated compute have been an open trend in DBMS development for the last half-decade. This is an obvious move with modern computing paradigms, and the academic literature has a standard name for it. This feels like "JAMStack" from Netlify happening all over again. I tweeted about this in 2022, as a general trend, and also from the RocksDB meetup emphasizing disaggregated storage: - https://x.com/GavinRayDev/status/1607769112234823680 https://x.com/GavinRayDev/status/1607769112234823680 - https://x.com/GavinRayDev/status/1600666127025156096 https://x.com/GavinRayDev/status/1600666127025156096

jeremyjh 5mo ago
I don't think it should be surprising that vendors are not going to lead with "disaggregated storage". I don't see that taking off either. This isn't a paper in a journal. Aurora doesn't call it that either. But yes, it is not a new idea.
- gavinray 5mo ago
  Avoiding industry-standard names and trying to introduce your own convention comes off as hubristic and grift-ey to me. "Basic literacy" -> "Prompt Engineering" "P2P networking" -> "Web3" "Service-Oriented Architecture" -> "Microservices" Maybe I'm old-man-yelling-at-cloud.
  - jeremyjh 5mo ago
    Its more like old-man-yelling-at-billboard. Its just marketing. Its like complaining about the font they chose.
nikita 5mo ago
Lakebase is referring to the fact that in addition to disaggregated storage s3 is authoritative storage for older data. Since data is on s3 (or lake) you can perform direct to s3 type operations like data loading, reading this data by engines that are not Postgres and more
- gavinray 5mo ago
  > in addition to disaggregated storage s3 is authoritative storage for older data Suppose a person retrives cold data from another Object Storage protocol rather than S3. This is no longer a "Lakebase", so we have to come up with a different name to avoid confusion. But if you say "Disaggregated Storage on S3" then you have the flexibility to change that to "Disaggregated Storage on FOOBAR" to avoid confusion.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - majormajor 5mo ago
    > Suppose a person retrives cold data from another Object Storage protocol rather than S3. This is no longer a "Lakebase", so we have to come up with a different name to avoid confusion. I've never seen "lake" or adjacent terminology refer to S3 specifically like that vs other object storage. A data lake on Ceph would still be a data lake. (My quibble would be that "lake" often refers to inconsistent or unstructured, and itself has always been a bit handwavy compared to "warehouse," whereas this is very structured data on object storage.)
    - andyferris 5mo ago
      Yes. Maybe I’m wrong, but AFAICT this is block (page) storage backed by S3, tuned for Postgres with some paxos-linked storage/caching servers sitting in front? Sounds good, but I’m not sure “lake” or “warehouse” is a word I’d choose… much closer to Litestream-with-reads, or the somewhat-famous “I ran out of RAM so I downloaded some more” blog article.

jeremyjh 5mo ago

I don't think it should be surprising that vendors are not going to lead with "disaggregated storage". I don't see that taking off either. This isn't a paper in a journal. Aurora doesn't call it that either. But yes, it is not a new idea.

gavinray 5mo ago
Avoiding industry-standard names and trying to introduce your own convention comes off as hubristic and grift-ey to me. "Basic literacy" -> "Prompt Engineering" "P2P networking" -> "Web3" "Service-Oriented Architecture" -> "Microservices" Maybe I'm old-man-yelling-at-cloud.
- jeremyjh 5mo ago
  Its more like old-man-yelling-at-billboard. Its just marketing. Its like complaining about the font they chose.

nikita 5mo ago

Lakebase is referring to the fact that in addition to disaggregated storage s3 is authoritative storage for older data. Since data is on s3 (or lake) you can perform direct to s3 type operations like data loading, reading this data by engines that are not Postgres and more

gavinray 5mo ago
> in addition to disaggregated storage s3 is authoritative storage for older data Suppose a person retrives cold data from another Object Storage protocol rather than S3. This is no longer a "Lakebase", so we have to come up with a different name to avoid confusion. But if you say "Disaggregated Storage on S3" then you have the flexibility to change that to "Disaggregated Storage on FOOBAR" to avoid confusion.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- majormajor 5mo ago
  > Suppose a person retrives cold data from another Object Storage protocol rather than S3. This is no longer a "Lakebase", so we have to come up with a different name to avoid confusion. I've never seen "lake" or adjacent terminology refer to S3 specifically like that vs other object storage. A data lake on Ceph would still be a data lake. (My quibble would be that "lake" often refers to inconsistent or unstructured, and itself has always been a bit handwavy compared to "warehouse," whereas this is very structured data on object storage.)
  - andyferris 5mo ago
    Yes. Maybe I’m wrong, but AFAICT this is block (page) storage backed by S3, tuned for Postgres with some paxos-linked storage/caching servers sitting in front? Sounds good, but I’m not sure “lake” or “warehouse” is a word I’d choose… much closer to Litestream-with-reads, or the somewhat-famous “I ran out of RAM so I downloaded some more” blog article.