mikesun
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
i was intuitively wondering the same but i'm having trouble reasoning how the post's example with transactions 1, 2, 3, 4 exhibits this behavior. in the example, is transaction 2 the only read-only transaction and therefore the only transaction to read from the read replica? i.e. transactions 1, 3, 4 use the primary and transaction 2 uses the read replica?
The Persistence Infrastructure team develops and operates Discord’s real-time datastore systems that serve the data of Discord's 150M+ monthly active users—including over a trillion messages! We work across multiple systems areas: databases, disk storage and Rust-based data access services. We're a small team whose work has a huge impact on our organization's success and ability to grow.
Apply here: https://discord.com/jobs/7288234002
- A given row of data is configured to have N replicas, e.g. 3, 5, etc, but N doesn't have to equal the actual size the database cluster. e.g. you can have a database cluster of 21 nodes with N being 3. N represents the "Raft cluster size" and the database is composed of many "Raft clusters" that are responsible for segments of the data space. You can horizontally scale the size of the database cluster by adding more nodes and thus more "Raft clusters"
- Raft/Paxos are used to ensure linearizable writes to those replicas through a leader
- Multi row/partition transactions are handled through a different kind consensus called atomic commit/2 phase commit that's orthogonal to Raft/Paxos consensus: https://timilearning.com/posts/mit-6.824/lecture-12-distribu...
- Systems like Spanner, Cockroach have higher write latencies because replicas in Raft cluster have to achieve quorum consensus, but reads latency can mostly not be affected by always reading from the leader of a cluster via things like leader leases.
Our estimations for MTTF for our larger clusters would mean there'd be a risk of simultaneous nodes stopping due to bad sector reads. Remediation in that case would basically require cleaning and rewarming the cache, which for large data sets could be on the order of an hour or more, which would mean we'd lose quorum availability during that time.
> to me your solution sounds absolutely brutal for needing a complete copy of the remote disk on the local "cache" disk at all times for the RAID array to operate at all, meaning it will be much harder to quickly recover from other hardware failures.) In Scylla/Cassandra, you need to run full repairs that scan over all of the data. Having an LRU cache doesn't work well with this.
One of the reasons an LRU cache like dm-cache wasn't feasible was because we had a higher than acceptable bad sector read rate which would cause a cache like dm-cache to bubble up a block device error up to the database. The database would then shut itself down when it encountered an disk-level error.
> How does md handle a synchronous write in a heterogenous mirror? Does it wait for both devices to be written? Yes, md waits for both mirrors to be written.
> I'm also curious how this solution compares to allocating more ram to the servers, and either letting the database software use this for caching, or even creating a ramdisk and putting that in raid1 with the persistent storage. Since the SSDs are being treated as volatile anyways. I assume it would be prohibitively expensive to replicate the entire persistent store into main memory. Yeah, we're talking many terabytes.
> I'd also be interested to know how this compares with replacing the entire persistent disk / SSD system with zfs over a few SSDs (which would also allow snapshoting). Of course it is probably a huge feature to be able to have snapshots be integrated into your cloud... Would love if we could've used ZFS, but Scylla requires XFS.