?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Amazon's Dynamo

« previous entry | next entry »
Oct. 3rd, 2007 | 02:06 pm

http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/10/amazons_dynamo.html

"Most of these services only store and retrieve data by primary key
and do not require the complex querying and management functionality
offered by an RDBMS. This excess functionality requires expensive
hardware and highly skilled personnel for its operation, making it a
very inefficient solution. In addition, the available replication
technologies are limited and typically choose consistency over
availability."

1) Most web work is primary key.
2) Its not transactional.
3) Availability is more important then a lost data

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {8}

Поисковик-затейник

(no subject)

from: itman
date: Oct. 3rd, 2007 10:10 pm (UTC)
Link

Amazon is using non-transactional system????
BTW, why have not they mentioned Bigtable, which seems to be the only (or one of the few) distributed storage engines described so far.

Reply | Thread

Brian "Krow" Aker

(no subject)

from: krow
date: Oct. 3rd, 2007 10:25 pm (UTC)
Link

I never have mentioned Big table?

I talk about it all the time at conferences :)

These large scale systems are of keen interest to me right now.

I'd argue that there are a few of these system available right now, and I think more will be coming online (especially open source ones). Anyone running a website right now that is scaling should be figuring out how to make one of these.

Put it another way, what is memcached? Its just a big one of these that happens to not be durable (yet).

Reply | Parent | Thread

Поисковик-затейник

(no subject)

from: itman
date: Oct. 3rd, 2007 10:45 pm (UTC)
Link

> I never have mentioned Big table?
Not you, they the authors of the Amazon's article. As far as I understand it, you are not among them. Correct me please, if I am wrong.

>I'd argue that there are a few of these system available right now, and I think more will be coming online (especially open source ones). Anyone running a website right now that is scaling should be figuring out how to make one of these.

I'd, too. But I am talking about publications. There are fewer publications than available systems :-)

>Put it another way, what is memcached? Its just a big one of these that happens to not be durable (yet).

Durability is an enormous challenge.

Reply | Parent | Thread

allmydata.org

from: zooko
date: Oct. 22nd, 2007 11:00 pm (UTC)
Link

Here's an open source file storage tool which is intended to scale up in various dimensions (as it matures):

http://allmydata.org

Regards,

Zooko

Reply | Parent | Thread

Brian "Krow" Aker

(no subject)

from: krow
date: Oct. 3rd, 2007 10:39 pm (UTC)
Link

BTW don't be too surprised how many systems exist out in the web world that do not use transactions....

Reply | Parent | Thread

Поисковик-затейник

(no subject)

from: itman
date: Oct. 3rd, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
Link

Yet, I would prefer to have transactions for any buy-selling service.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Brian "Krow" Aker

(no subject)

from: krow
date: Oct. 4th, 2007 01:17 am (UTC)
Link

You would be surprised....

Some sites do, but the ones that do limit themselves to particular queries where it is crucial.

Reply | Parent | Thread

awfief

(no subject)

from: awfief
date: Oct. 10th, 2007 03:39 am (UTC)
Link

Prefer.

Not require.

The great thing about humans is that we're fault tolerant. Machines are very inflexible. Humans will "understand what you mean" whereas machines choke if a semicolon isn't in the right place.

Meaning that if Amazon.com messes up one order in 100, which is millions of orders per year (!!!) it's actually OK, and cheaper all around to hire someone to apologize (customer service) and fix the problem than it is to have extreme database ACIDity.

Reply | Parent | Thread