Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Digg Says Yes To NoSQL Cassandra DB, Bye To MySQL

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-you-trust-a-db-by-that-name? dept.

Databases 271

donadony writes "After twitter, now it's Digg who's decided to replace MySQL and most of their infrastructure components and move away from LAMP to another architecture called NoSQL that is based in Cassandra, an open source project that develops a highly scalable second-generation distributed database. Cassandra was open sourced by Facebook in 2008 and is licensed under the Apache License. The reason for this move, as explained by Digg, is the increasing difficulty of building a high-performance, write-intensive application on a data set that is growing quickly, with no end in sight. This growth has forced them into horizontal and vertical partitioning strategies that have eliminated most of the value of a relational database, while still incurring all the overhead."

cancel ×

271 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing new ... (1, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460728)

Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!

Richard Stallman resigns from FSF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460914)

Richard Stallman resigns from Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] , announces bid for GNAA [gnaa.us] presidency

Which DB is better? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460916)

I too have a site running on MySQL and I am thinking of switching.

Can anyone tell me if there is any "comparison chart" listing the various features / usability of the various OSS DB packages available so I can make a better educated decision?

Please help !

Thank you !

Re:Which DB is better? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461032)

If you need a comparison chart... you don't need to switch.

It's probably not necessary to change such a huge part of your architecture if it's not worth investing serious time investigating and benchmarking the alternatives.

Re:Which DB is better? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461072)

Thank you for the reply.

It's not "switching for switching sake".

The reason for switching is simple: When my site first launch, MySQL is more than enough for it.

As it grows and grows, it's taxing MySQL more and more and right now it's already at the brim.

So ... Anyone has any info on where to look for a "comparison chart" or anything like that?

Please help !

Re:Which DB is better? (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461092)

Postgres, for people who care about their data.

Re:Which DB is better? (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461146)

you should probably look at what queries you're running and what the planner/optimizer is doing with them to verify the problem is mysql and not your schema and indexes.

Re:Which DB is better? (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461260)

What is at the brim? do you think that you have a performance issue? Considered a master/slave/slave/etc cluster? Do you do a ton of reads and few writes or many writes?

It's hard to say that mysql is at the brim without some explanation.

Re:Which DB is better? (5, Informative)

RelliK (4466) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461362)

Go with PostgreSQL. Reliable, standards-compliant, fast.

Re:Which DB is better? (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461688)

Note: Facebook, twitter, digg: they aren't moving to postgreSQL. Its not better enough to make any kind of difference for that kind of a scale. They don't need features, they need speed.

Re:Which DB is better? (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461720)

First of all, if he's asking Slashdot for advice (which is barely a step above reading tea leaves [which itself is a step above asking 4chan]), he doesn't need Facebook-level scalability.

Second, you're confusing scalability and performance. Scalable solutions tend to actually be slower than non-scalable ones: the difference is that a scalable system increases in capacity linearly with the number of machines you throw at it ("horizontal" scalability), whereas a fast non-scalable system generally needs the same number of faster, individual machines to increase capacity ("vertical" scaling).

Third, PostgreSQL has excellent performance, and PostgreSQL does, in fact, scale horizontally [postgresql.org] .

Why? (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461112)

So what's the advantage of switching?

I have a policy of if it ain't broke don't fix it

Re:Why? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461602)

Presumably the advantage is that what they have now doesn't work well and that they are concerned it will continue to work less and less until some arbitrary point in the future where they would have to declare it no longer works at all, and that what they're changing to seems to resolve the issue.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that somebody at Digg is aware of that particular catchphrase.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461650)

A bad policy when dealing with your data.

Once it's broke, it is way too late.

You can't un-LOSE the past 6 hours of transactions or table referential integrity that MySQL trashed, due to an unclean shutdown.

MySQL's great until it comes up to bite you in the arse.

Re:Which DB is better? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461148)

The whole NoSQL concept takes a little getting used to. I'm not knocking by any means, I've just been using the whole relational model for decades and need to digest this new approach before I can fully embrace it.

You can try this wiki page [wikipedia.org] for an explanation of the concept.

Re:Which DB is better? (3, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461190)

The page you cited, on column-oriented databases, describes an implementation strategy that's applicable to many types of databases. There are database engines that present a perfectly normal SQL interface to a column store, and there's actually a direct link to LucidDB [wikipedia.org] from the article. Likewise, there's nothing stopping a Cassandra-like database from serializing its on-disk bits the other way around.

Column-orientation has nothing to do with the "NoSQL" databases that are in vogue. It's completely orthogonal. You're talking about using vectors or linked lists when everyone else is arguing over whether to serialize data with XML or JSON.

Re:Nothing new ... (2, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461008)

UniVerse and elated products

Yes! These products are wonderful! They are spectacular! They are a beam of sunshine refreshing my soul! I'm so happy with them! Daisies!

Re:Nothing new ... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461166)

It pleases us all to see you were able to relate to his post. :-)

Re:Nothing new ... (1)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461448)

Seriously, are these like Universe products? I'm working in Unidata on a project, and you're right, it f'ing blows.

Re:Nothing new ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461672)

I love UniVerse as a database. UVBasic sucks though. Too bad there isn't a "native" way (not that UV SQL/UV.NET crap that tries to map a MV database into a SQL database) to access the data from .NET...

Re:Nothing new ... (2, Interesting)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461574)

Come on, it cannot be any sloppier than actual UniVerse: It performs extremely poorly on large files, especially when record sizes vary wildly. I've seen in-memory files in which any insert or update operation took 5+ seconds! In my experience, even Postgres in far weaker hardware just spanks UniVerse even on the simple queries where it should have an advantage. If you ever need to read two or three files, either by hand or through I dictionary entries, UniVerse is orders of magnitude slower. When you add the low quality of the system monitoring and debugging tools that are available for it, it turns into one big stinker.

If Cassandra is any slower, it'd have to lock the system up while idle.

Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (5, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460736)

In other news, Cassandra developers are celebrating the fact that their database is now used to store the largest amount of worthless information in history.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461000)

You should let them know that you are the only person who gets to decide on the value of information. I'm sure they'd love to know what information YOU find so important.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461116)

It's not just him.. the group voted around April of last year.. digg is crap!

Jury (so to speak) is still out on slashdot..

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461058)

I used to think that also applied to Slashdot. But no, I've learned a lot both directly and indirectly over the many years (ten years, wow). Even if most of it is crap, the debates and discussions are still quality entries worth keeping.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461384)

In other news, Cassandra developers are celebrating the fact that their database is now used to store the largest amount of worthless information in history.

I used to think that also applied to Slashdot. But no...

Correct - Slashdot doesn't use Cassandra!

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461082)

Worthless?

That data reflects our culture!

Sad* but true.

* Actually, if previous cultures preverved the data of their masses, it wouldent look much diffrent then what you see today. Toilet jokes and sexual humor are aways fashionable.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461370)

Worthless?

That data reflects our culture!

Nobody said it couldn't be both at the same time.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461110)

Fits, before that mysql was the best way to store data no one cared about.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Insightful)

OnlyJedi (709288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461178)

According to various internet sources (so take with a grain of salt):
Mark Zuckerberg's net worth [wikipedia.org] : $2 billion. Made entirely from Facebook.
Twitter's net worth [venturebeat.com] : $589 million.
Digg's net worth [websiteoutlook.com] : $24.34 million.

Even if each individual datum is nearly worthless, the combined value is far from it. Do you think any of those companies would still be worth what they are if they're databases were irretrievably wiped?

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461228)

Made entirely from Facebook.

No. It was made by schmoozing investors. None of companies you list has ever turned a profit.

This is the kind of reckless behavior that leads to financial bubbles. Pay should be much lower initially. I doubt Zuckerberg would have worked any less hard (or hacked any fewer email accounts) if he had been paid the mere subsidence wage of $1 million per year.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461284)

I doubt Zuckerberg would have worked any less hard (or hacked any fewer email accounts) if he had been paid the mere subsidence wage of $1 million per year.

Entrepreneurs are a funny breed. It's the extreme risk and reward - the prospect of riches just around the corner that drives them, not the daily feed bag (which keeps corporate drones climbing the ladder). Or course $1M/year is a lot of dough but it doesn't matter what the number is, once it's rolling in steady the motivation is gone. In other words, I disagree.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461330)

Are you seriously arguing that unless the first derivative of one's salary is positive, there's no incentive to work?

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461376)

Unfortunately, this is in fact true for many people -_-;;

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461430)

Are you seriously arguing that unless the first derivative of one's salary is positive, there's no incentive to work?

No, I did not say that one's salary needs to be monotonically increasing. That is not the point at all. And did you really have to turn this into a calculus problem?

To state it differently, many entrepreneurs are willing to work temporarily for little or even nothing, and to make great sacrifices such as giving up health benefits, vacations, and normal family/social life... things most 9-5 workers would never consider. Being someone's bitch for $1M/yr (or to be pedantic let's say $1M/yr + 5%/yr^2) may sound like a splendid deal to you but there are others who would work much harder for sweat equity in their own venture.

These people exist even if you can't fathom it. I'm one of them.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461460)

Let me ask the question a different way then: which particular tasks related to founding a company would you personally perform in exchange for $2 billion, but not in exchange for $1 million? Would you work longer hours? Talk to your family less?

I cannot conceive of incentive to work increasing appreciably after about $1 million. We can talk about the exact figure, but clearly $2 billion is ludicrous for a private individual.

Excessive compensation is rent seeking [wikipedia.org] and harms society in numerous ways: it distorts the political process through over-concentration of resources; it leads to production of luxury goods that have less utilitarian benefit than mass-marked ones; and worst of all, excessive compensation leads to financial bubbles because it causes too many dollars to chase too few investment opportunities.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461494)

Let me ask the question a different way then: which particular tasks related to founding a company would you personally perform in exchange for $2 billion, but not in exchange for $1 million? Would you work longer hours? Talk to your family less?

Would I prefer $1M now vs $2B later? Are you seriously that obtuse, or have I been trolled?

Do you have any notion of what the "tasks related to founding a company" even are? Just some legal paperwork, I suppose?

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0, Troll)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461518)

No. To simplify the scenario, let's pretend instead that you receive a lump-sum payment of $2 billion or $1 million two years. What specific actions would take for the former that you would not take for the latter?

As for the "tasks related to founding a company" bit: the intent was to screen out irrelevant answers like "I'd have sex with Newt Gingrich for $2 billion but not for $1 million".

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0, Offtopic)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461636)

You're not the brightest crayon in the box are you? Nobody knows who the winners will be until years down the road. There are no billions of dollars in play on day one.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (0, Flamebait)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461654)

You're being deliberately obtuse. The question under discussion has to do with incentive to work, not with speculation. My point, to which you still have not responded, is that obscene financial rewards don't cause people to work any harder than high but normal rewards do.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461736)

Your rhetorical question is drivel. It doesn't even parse in English, let alone relate to any plausible scenario I can imagine an entrepreneur encountering:

To simplify the scenario, let's pretend instead that you receive a lump-sum payment of $2 billion or $1 million two years. What specific actions would take for the former that you would not take for the latter?

Why don't you put down your drink for a minute and see if you can muster a moment of clarity. If you can express yourself a little better then I might continue this conversation. Otherwise, good night.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461256)

Sorry, I just can't resist...

> databases were irretrievably wiped

The expression to describe such an fortunate event would be "and nothing of value was [would be] lost".

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461314)

The risk is not total loss of the entire database but occasional corruption here and there. However, for Facebook that's tolerable as long as it doesn't rise to a level such that it irritates the users. Given that the average Facebook user can't remember her best friend's phone number, that's a pretty high level.

Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg (2, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461406)

Reddit also switched from memcachedb to Cassandra for their kvstore. From research to launch took 10 days.

Reddit (3, Informative)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460748)

Reddit also recently switched [reddit.com] to Cassandra.

Re:Reddit (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460930)

Just for persistent cache, not for their main database.

What about Slashdot? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460984)

Will Slashdot switch?

Re:Reddit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460986)

So if you run a site full of teenagers with zero buying power who think that steeling is the best thing ever - Cassandra is for YOU!

Re:Reddit (5, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461122)

I was not aware metallurgy was popular amongst the youth.

Re:Reddit (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461180)

Clearly you haven't spent enough time at reddit.com lately.

Reddit's reliability has been shitty lately. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461198)

On a related note, Reddit's performance and reliability has dropped off significantly since switching to Amazon's "Cloud", and dropped off even further after this switch to Cassandra.

The constant 503 errors, plus horrendous load times when it does manage to work, have driven me and many others away from Reddit. That's why I'm posting here on Slashdot.

Cloud hosting is a stupid idea for anything beyond a blog getting 10 hits per date. All the talk about scalability is pure bunk. I mean, even with the extensive knowledge and infrastructure of Amazon, the Reddit site is slow (and it wasn't like that before they switched).

Re:Reddit's reliability has been shitty lately. (3, Interesting)

uncqual (836337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461754)

One aspect of the "cloud" (as in EC2) is that you can not only scale up easily (for $ of course), you can scale down easily (to save $).

When you have fixed "in house" infrastructure to handle peak loads, there's not a lot of motivation to power off absolutely as many servers as you possibly can when you're not at peak load - all you save is the energy costs (and, if you're using remote hosting, you don't get rewarded for this except for whatever value you attach to feeling "green"). You still pay for the floor space, the machines, and perhaps some sort of maintenance contracts regardless of if the server is powered up or down.

Using EC2 (depending on how you've structured it - some dedicated, some non-dedicated instances etc), if utilization drops to 80% over 20 instances, the temptation is to release a couple instances to save a couple bucks and drive utilization up to 90% on the remaining instances -- with potentially unfortunate consequences.

Although I have no idea, I wonder if Reddit is just releasing instances too aggressively now "because they can" in order to save money? If so, the fingrer should be pointed at Reddit, not the cloud (or EC2 specifically).

Database Evolution (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460764)

I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures. Instead of this flat 2D table mentality, imagine n-dimensional matrices of data, scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts.

I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table' model, and did a couple inner-joins and unions, you could rip space-time wide-open!

Re:Database Evolution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460848)

its already multi-dimensional. you have a record, it has keys in it, the values can be objects. that's three or more dimensions there depending on how complicated the objects are.

Away from LAMP? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460780)

Or away from MySQL? There is a difference.

Re:Away from LAMP? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460994)

Considering that LAMP stands for Linux + Apache + MySQL + [ PHP | Perl | Python ], I'd have to say that no, there isn't.

Re:Away from LAMP? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461056)

LAMP stands for "Linux Apache MySQL PHP". Moving away from MySQL IS moving away from LAMP. In this case, they seem to be moving to LACP. If they had moved to PostgreSQL it might be termed LAPP.

Linux Apache MongoDB [PHP | Perl | Python] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461108)

MongoDB is another "NoSQL" solution. You can still have LAMP. I think they do a disservice to the LAMP stack when lumping it in with their issues with MySQL. (unless of course they really are getting rid of Linux, Apache and PHP too.

Re:Away from LAMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461342)

Now they just need to switch to FreeBSD so they can use FAPP.

Re:Away from LAMP? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461740)

Sorry, LACP is already taken. You Linux folken can't have it, it belongs to the network itself, (IEEE 802.3ad) :)

LAMP was meant to mean Linux Apache Mysql and Perl though.

Good for them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460782)

MySQL is the leading bottleneck and point of failure when your project starts to grow. MySQL is a monoculture. On the lowest end of the spectrum (after SQL Lite) it rules the landscape. Virtually 95% of all hosting companies offer MySQL as the only option for customers. Would be nice if some alternatives emerged and we had some competition in that space.

Re:Good for them (3, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460924)

100% of hosting companies do not have twitter, facebook, reddit, or digg as their clients. Its a different market. Mysql does have a competitor in this space called PostgreSQL. Its pretty good. Pretty much every hosting company I would consider doing business with also offers it. But again, PostgreSQL wouldn't have saved the day for these companies, they've reached a different sector of the market due to their enormous scale.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461234)

But since most developers model their domains Object Oriented, why is MySql the default choice for any small application? Why not a document database or a native oo one?

Re:Good for them (3, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461274)

But since most developers model their domains Object Oriented, why is MySql the default choice for any small application? Why not a document database or a native oo one?

The relational model is consistent and easy to work with. It's easy to specify constraints that describe what the data should look like, and to allow several applications to interact with the data. It's also easier to optimize a database when you can describe discrete queries instead of directly following links from program code as you would in a navigational/object/document/etc. database.

Furthermore, application data models aren't all that object-oriented. Most of the time, the manipulated data types (say, "story", "post", and "user") fall into well-defined categories that correspond well to rows in a table. The few mismatches are easily dealt with in application code.

Sure, using an object database might be "easier" for the first 15 minutes, but you'll kick yourself when you have to manipulate it in any kind of sophisticated fashion.

New acronym in order? (5, Funny)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460784)

From the Digg blog - http://about.digg.com/node/564 [digg.com]

"And if that doesn't sound like a big enough challenge, we're replacing most of our infrastructure components and moving away from LAMP."

Cassandra Linux Apache PHP?

Re:New acronym in order? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460850)

Trust me, you don't want the clap!!!!

Re:New acronym in order? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461502)

I use Cassandra Linux IIS TCL

Dont ask how that works out, because every month or so it makes me want to kill someone.

Re:New acronym in order? (1)

solferino (100959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461596)

This reminds me of the original name for the Daihatsu Applause, before they did their complete model name reaction testing.

Dugg (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460808)

They'll be able to suck off Kevin Rose's dick that much faster

The Monty crowd will blame this on Oracle (2, Insightful)

heathm (174421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460846)

This sad thing is that Monty's MySQL fan boys will blame this on Oracle when in reality the move to Cassandra (or other NoSQL databases) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reins.

Re:The Monty crowd will blame this on Oracle (1)

DarkofPeace (1672314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460900)

True, but sometimes a friendly nudge don't hurt.

Lighttpd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460852)

Why not lighttpd?

so does it use sql or not? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31460908)

i can't tell from the 4 lines of text buried in ads that is this supposed article, but i'm guessing this "nosql" still uses an sql database backend?

and why wouldn't a relational database system not be perfect for facebook?

Re:so does it use sql or not? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461004)

no...

Wow... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31460910)

I became interested in this for use with my projects (probably won't ever outgrow MySQL's capabilities, but it looked like maybe it'd make redundancy easier).

I immediately became disinterested when I read the following line:
"Also, unless you've downloaded a binary distribution, you'll need to compile the software by invoking ant from the top-level directory."

Do I really need Java to run this? Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else? Not just because of how much slower it is, but think of how much overhead is required. On a lighter server configuration, this could easily double memory usage.

Re:Wow... (1)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461046)

You couldn't even be bothered to read up on what ANT actually was, could you...

"Ant is a Java-based build tool. In theory, it is kind of like Make, without Make's wrinkles and with the full portability of pure Java code."

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461086)

I know exactly what ant is. I use it on a regular basis. I was pointing out that cassandra uses Java to at least some extent, which is disgusting (which is proven by the fact that jdk is part of the dependencies for it with apt).

Re:Wow... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461100)

Well, I don't know too many people who program in C and use Ant. And a glance at the FAQ implies it's Java-based (it talks about the JVM a bit).

I guess Cassandra just isn't really targeted at the market segment where the overhead of a JVM would make much of a difference, even if it would make redundancy easier.

Re:Wow... (3, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461154)

Don't be too quick to put Java down.. it's slower but it scales fairly well.

Re:Wow... (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461486)

Bullshit. Languages don't scale: programs do.

Writing a program in Java makes is scalable in the same way that painting a car red makes it fast. The JVM is quite good these days, but don't make up advantages that don't exist.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461540)

You'll have to live with it. "It scales", and it scales great in "the cloud". I know, I cringe too.

Re:Wow... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461564)

Java the language isn't scalable on it's own.. there's no magic scaling technology built into the jvm.. but the general Java "culture" tends to (in my opinion) achieve at least medium scalability.

When judging a language, you _have_ to look at the culture around it. These days nothing is 100% custom build.. a sizable project is going to import a wide variety of 3'rd party libraries. The general attitude of the community is going to determine how suitable these libraries are for whatever scale you will be using them at.

Same as how languages like perl on their own don't produce unmaintainable code.. it's the perl "write once, read never" culture that leads to so much unreadable code.

Re:Wow... (1)

salemboot (1178525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461530)

so does ASP.net and C#.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461532)

Totally!!! It scales from slow to glacial with no effort at all!!!

Re:Wow... (2, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461242)

If you're trying to run a site on a $15/month hosting account, then no, this is probably not for you. But if you're at the stage where MySQL isn't able to handle all the data you're throwing at it, then chances are you won't care about the extra few MB of memory that the Java runtime requires.

Re:Wow... (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461272)

> But if you're at the stage where MySQL isn't able to handle all the data
> you're throwing at it... ...it's time to move up to PostgreSQL.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461288)

/etc/init.d/cassandra stop
free -m
-/+ buffers/cache: 213 1259 /etc/init.d/cassandra start
free -m
-/+ buffers/cache: 308 1164

Note that memory usage increases by 100MB, and that's immediately after installing it.
Sites with such large volume could easily benefit from a low memory usage configuration.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461428)

And even after that stop it left 100 tasks in 2 processes running jsvc. This on a server that used to only have 50 processes at a time (with both apache and mysql running with about 10 processes each).

Re:Wow... (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461308)

This isn't your grandfather's JVM.

These days, Java is quite fast and efficient, and there are even a lot of different alternative VMs you can try. Sure, startup time isn't the best, and Swing is still a lumbering, over-engineered, ill-fitting albatross: but these problems don't matter for server applications.

IMHO, the best part is that you can write programs that run on the JVM in a dialect of Lisp [clojure.org] and interact seamlessly with other code on the JVM.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461504)

1999 called. They want their bitching about Java back.

Re:Wow... (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461536)

I'm sorry, but Java still doesn't compare to C, and those differences *especially* apply to high load server applications.

Allergic reaction to MySQL (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461136)

These slides [pgexperts.com] present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the current state of free databases. Whether you're in the NoSQL camp or not, they're worth reading.

That said, here's my take:

It's currently fashionable to replace MySQL with some "NoSQL" database or other. This trend is driven by two factors:

  • MySQL's community is fragmenting into several forks as Oracle purchases the rights, which created the impression that MySQL's development is entering a riskier, unstable period.
  • "NoSQL" is the technology buzzword du jour in the Bay Area. It's difficult to overstate the impact of social forces on technology choice: most technology selections are governed more by what our friends say than by an impartial and disinterested weighing of merits.

I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL. There's a world of difference between it and MySQL, and condemning all relational database systems because of bad experiences with MySQL is like condemning all sandwiches because McDonalds once made you sick. In giving up RDBMSes entirely, these developers lose quite a bit of safety, flexibility, an convenience. It's a huge over-reaction.

This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to use: it should be about choosing the best tool for the job. And I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the advantages conferred by a relational system --- enforced integrity, interoperability based on SQL, query flexibility, storage flexibility --- make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any job. If you need sloppier semantics for some cases (for example, "eventual consistency"), you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs.

Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL (1, Offtopic)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461344)

I think it comes down to the sad fact that most people aren't good at their jobs. They tend to rise to one level above where they are actually competent, and stay there. And from my experience, they aren't usually very happy in whatever that position is, which (and IMHO) might be the reason that people in modern societies are often less happy (overall) than people in less advanced societies. Not many people enjoy that.

Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461402)

go live in a mud hut then if it'll make you happy (i suspect it wont).

society isn't miserable, it's the media telling us we are miserable that has people thinking it. just look at how every single event has to be a crisis or the worst ever of something. and then, a word from our sponsors who sell product X that is the cure for what ales you.

if you want to destress and be happy, go on a total media black out. it's amazing how much less pressure you feel and happier you are if you refuse to read the news or watch the news on TV.

Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461420)

Actually, compared to people in industrial nations like ours, hunter-gatherers are happier and have more leisure time. After all, that's the environment to which we're biologically adapted. You can make a serious argument that agriculture is the worst thing to ever befall humanity.

Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461566)

This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to use

Sigh. Most people seem to be stuck on following trends—in pretty much every aspect of their lives. Why think when you can conform to the crowd?

MySQL not best example of relational technology (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461140)

MySQL has never been a good example of a relational database, the underlying implementation is limited. Its MySQL that is the problem here, not relational databases.

I suspect here that it is not the relational model at fault here, but the lack of creativity and competence in implementing a relational database technology. MySQL perhaps has never been a particularly scalable platform, it has a number of severe limitation and does not seem to be designed with a lot of thought for a distributed environment. Its developers seem to have developed it for small scale webpages, and have been notorius on leaving out many advanced features, and thus have limited its effectiveness to small, low powered pages.

Its all in implementation, its not the relational database model that needs fixing, it is the underlying implementations.

"NoSQL"? (5, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461446)

Am I the only one who frowns at this moniker?

First, it creates a false premise where people need to pick "SQL" versus "no SQL", while many real-world systems intelligently combine relational and non-relational data storage for their needs. There is no conflict.

Second, there's nothing wrong with SQL as a language in particular, and in fact many of the "noSQL" engines are starting to support and extending basic SQL queries, instead of reinventing their own query language for the same purpose.

I suppose "lessRDBMSabuse" was less catchy...

Somethings not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31461480)

There is this thing, it's called archiving. Sounds like another example of software developers pretending to be DBA's, if you ask me.

Seems odd to be keeping PhP (0)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31461610)

The data of course is the taxed part of structure, depend as it does on how much previous activative there has been on the subject at Digg, but it seems strange to still be keep the other parts of LAMP, and not to moving to a structure its everything is clustered, the including the web server and the application code. Cassandra is based on Java, and storing map and objects, it would make sense to me if they over from apache and php, to apache tomcat, or maybe glass fish. I guess now we'll all have to have Cassandra on our CVs to look professional.

---

Databases [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?