3 ms·
So my graduate databases class recently took a look at several of these cloud computing environments, and Microsoft offering is clearly compelling both from an
by timtadh 17y ago
So my graduate databases class recently took a look at several of these cloud computing environments, and Microsoft offering is clearly compelling both from an tool integration stand point and from the technical side.
For instance Microsoft's incremental innovation in their S3 like utility, called Simple Data Storage (SDS), is that SDS provides guarantees for Durability and Consistency, while Amazon really only guarantees Durability. There has been some work on implementing idempotent logs on top of S3, and SQS to provide similar guarantees but this is third party academic work see http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1376616.1376645 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1376616.1376645 for an introduction.
While at first glance Microsofts innovation is an improvement however, there is the question of how SDS performs at scale. Providing consistency for such a system will incur some amount of overhead. Has anyone here used SDS to serve larges amount of data with frequent updates? I would be interested to know how it compares with S3.
- teej 17y agoI appreciate the call for a comparison, but I think Microsoft's solution and Amazon's solution fit way different needs. The biggest S3 usages I have seen in production environments have been for large asset hosting on websites, not data storage for backends. We use S3 because it's dev friendly, cheap enough, and doesn't require talking to a sales person at Akamai.
- sriramk 17y agoI work for Windows Azure. I think the right equivalent to S3 is Windows Azure blob storage. I'm really not sure what you're refering to by SDS. SDS used to refer to an older version of what is now called SQL Azure but the technology there has been changed dramatically.
- timtadh 17y agoYou are probably right. We reviewed this paper about a month ago so i probably mixed up the names.