5 ms·

When did you last use Mongo? We've been using it in production for 3+ years, and while there were certainly some issues early on, we've had nothing but success

by james33 11y ago

When did you last use Mongo? We've been using it in production for 3+ years, and while there were certainly some issues early on, we've had nothing but success with it (especially over the last few major versions).

takeda 11y ago
You could have inconsistencies in your data[1] and not even realize it. [1] https://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb https://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb
- tracker1 11y ago
  While the call-me-maybe series is definitely informative... it's worth noting that they've called out flaws in every distributed system they've tested against. What it comes down to is, are those flaws fatal in practice. The truth is, it depends.... If you lose a comment on a social media site, no big deal. If you lose part of a transaction for a multi million dollar stock trade, very big deal. No software system is perfect, but there are definitely practical balances to be made. Especially when you are beyond what a single database/server can offer in terms of write throughput. The fact is, when your traffic needs exceed what a single database can keep up with in terms of writes, you have to give up some level of reliability.
  - takeda 11y ago
    He wasn't able to find issues with Zookeeper and Postgres. Granted that you can only prove that the system is vulnerable and not the reverse, but if there is a vulnerability it is much harder to trigger it.
    - weddpros 11y ago
      In general, strongly consistent distributed datastores like zookeeper tend to be strongly consistent (cf Consul and Etcd too)... But Postgres was not tested as a distributed database, sharded or replicated, and without any form of failover. The difference is: kill a zookeeper node and you will not notice, kill Postgres and your app is dead. Postgres is a good DB, but since it's not distributed, it's not very useful to compare it to distributed databases. Yes it's consistent, but it's only as reliable as the single node where it is installed.
      - collyw 11y ago
        95% of the people I hear about using NoSQL databases are using them on a single node.
        takeda 11y ago
        MongoDB doesn't even scale well horizontally[1]. I normally would put a link to paper where they benchmarked Cassandra & HBase with MongoDB 2, but looks like they did their tests again with MongoDB 3.0 and included Couchbase as well. [1] http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/themes/datastax-2014-08/files/NoSQL_Benchmarks_EndPoint.pdf http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/themes/datastax-2014-08/f...
        tracker1 11y ago
        I've mostly used MongoDB in mostly-read, and in a replica set... that said, if I needed to support pure scale, I'd be more inclined to reach for Cassandra. If I only needed mid-range replication, I'm more inclined to look at RethinkDB or ElasticSearch at this point. In fact the project I'm working on now is using ElasticSearch. All of that said, you have to take a research paper funded by a database company (Datastax is backing Cassandra) with a grain of salt. Not to mention, that most people reach for MongoDB because it has some flexibility, and is a natural fit for many programming models. Beyond this, setting up a replica set with MongoDB was far easier than with any other database I've had to do the same with... Though I'd say getting setup with RethinkDB is nicer, but there's no automated failover option yet.
        takeda 11y ago
        The results are so vastly apart than I don't think there's enough salt that you can add to make MongoDB look good here. They also were quite generous by comparing load using non-durable write for CouchDB, HBase and MongoDB against Cassandra's durable write. From my personal experience many scaling problems that you have with MongoDB once you switch even to a relational database that can't scale out are laughable.
        11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by james33 11y ago

takeda 11y ago

You could have inconsistencies in your data[1] and not even realize it. [1] https://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb https://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb

tracker1 11y ago
While the call-me-maybe series is definitely informative... it's worth noting that they've called out flaws in every distributed system they've tested against. What it comes down to is, are those flaws fatal in practice. The truth is, it depends.... If you lose a comment on a social media site, no big deal. If you lose part of a transaction for a multi million dollar stock trade, very big deal. No software system is perfect, but there are definitely practical balances to be made. Especially when you are beyond what a single database/server can offer in terms of write throughput. The fact is, when your traffic needs exceed what a single database can keep up with in terms of writes, you have to give up some level of reliability.
- takeda 11y ago
  He wasn't able to find issues with Zookeeper and Postgres. Granted that you can only prove that the system is vulnerable and not the reverse, but if there is a vulnerability it is much harder to trigger it.
  - weddpros 11y ago
    In general, strongly consistent distributed datastores like zookeeper tend to be strongly consistent (cf Consul and Etcd too)... But Postgres was not tested as a distributed database, sharded or replicated, and without any form of failover. The difference is: kill a zookeeper node and you will not notice, kill Postgres and your app is dead. Postgres is a good DB, but since it's not distributed, it's not very useful to compare it to distributed databases. Yes it's consistent, but it's only as reliable as the single node where it is installed.
    - collyw 11y ago
      95% of the people I hear about using NoSQL databases are using them on a single node.
      - takeda 11y ago
        MongoDB doesn't even scale well horizontally[1]. I normally would put a link to paper where they benchmarked Cassandra & HBase with MongoDB 2, but looks like they did their tests again with MongoDB 3.0 and included Couchbase as well. [1] http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/themes/datastax-2014-08/files/NoSQL_Benchmarks_EndPoint.pdf http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/themes/datastax-2014-08/f...
        tracker1 11y ago
        I've mostly used MongoDB in mostly-read, and in a replica set... that said, if I needed to support pure scale, I'd be more inclined to reach for Cassandra. If I only needed mid-range replication, I'm more inclined to look at RethinkDB or ElasticSearch at this point. In fact the project I'm working on now is using ElasticSearch. All of that said, you have to take a research paper funded by a database company (Datastax is backing Cassandra) with a grain of salt. Not to mention, that most people reach for MongoDB because it has some flexibility, and is a natural fit for many programming models. Beyond this, setting up a replica set with MongoDB was far easier than with any other database I've had to do the same with... Though I'd say getting setup with RethinkDB is nicer, but there's no automated failover option yet.
        takeda 11y ago
        The results are so vastly apart than I don't think there's enough salt that you can add to make MongoDB look good here. They also were quite generous by comparing load using non-durable write for CouchDB, HBase and MongoDB against Cassandra's durable write. From my personal experience many scaling problems that you have with MongoDB once you switch even to a relational database that can't scale out are laughable.
        11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]