Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#71

Post by roel_v »

foxh0und wrote: post #61
dsmithatx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with one of the largest ad publishing companies. They wanted to track data about every client served an ad. This generated over 1.2 Terabyte per hour of data when the MySQL master started to max out. We had the largest possible multiple core system. It was going to cost my client $30k to upgrade to SSD drives to get more out of MySQL. Also note we had to store this data on an expensive SAN in order to feed t…

Was $30k a lot of money for one of the largest add publishers?

OTOH, if you're a consultant, and you can say 'hey guys I can save you 30k, my fee is only 15k', and you can do it in a week - I mean, there are weeks where I bill less than 15k...

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#72

Post by mcintyre1994 »

qaq wrote: post #46
dsmithatx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with one of the largest ad publishing companies. They wanted to track data about every client served an ad. This generated over 1.2 Terabyte per hour of data when the MySQL master started to max out. We had the largest possible multiple core system. It was going to cost my client $30k to upgrade to SSD drives to get more out of MySQL. Also note we had to store this data on an expensive SAN in order to feed t…

A production large scale ad. system system that was doing 1.2 TB per hour in writes, was migrated over from MySQL to MongoDB in roughly 24 hour window cool story Bro.

If more comments were like their story then this would be a way higher value comments section.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#73

Post by GenericsMotors »

meowface wrote: post #53
leothekim wrote: post #8

They've made their share of mistakes, but they've stuck it out and have definitely improved their product over the years. I wish them all the best for their IPO. What would be really good to see As a measure of their business health is an indication of how their cloud business is doing with respect to their enterprise sales business. A healthy cloud business would signal less volatility in the face of high revenue ga…

Reliability and implementation ideas aside, MongoDB popularized document stores and document stores can sometimes be a good thing (even if there's usually little to no reason to prefer them to plain SQL databases for most applications). So they deserve credit there.

Agreed; though the way they did their marketing early on the message they conveyed was that document databases were here to replace RDBMSs. It was extremely dishonest.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#74

Post by LoSboccacc »

hvidgaard wrote: post #68
skrebbel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

Concider what a database does. It provides ACID properties and ability to query data. If all you need is writing data, the fastest you can do it write it directly to the disk, without the overhead a database comes with. Using a loadbalancer in front of a farm of cheap logging machines, and aggreate the data you need for analysis to a suitable machine.

they'd still need to query their stuff, I guess, so you'd need to trow in there somewhere something to aggregate logs and get the metrics they're tracking out of it - which can totally be done in streaming, without the need of going trough the logs every time, for most metrics.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#75

Post by romanovcode »

myth_drannon wrote: post #26

It looks like the NoSQL movement was just a fad and plenty of startups got burned by it and some still stuck with this tech , writing inefficient workarounds for something that comes OTB with the regular SQL databases.

There are a good reason to use NoSQL, for example to replace EAV. But definitely not a good use to do everything on NoSQL so most companies opted out for 2 database solution = SQL + NoSQL and did not get burned.

The thing however is that since Postgres released indexed BSON support (which is actually faster then MongoDB) there is absolutely no point in opting for 2 database solution and making things harder for no reason.

TL;DR

Use Postgres.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#77

Post by gaius »

hvidgaard wrote: post #69
deepGem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree that there was a lot of noise in the nosql world and a lot of people got carried away by the ease of use metric. I guess people were lured by the prospect of not having to write SQL joins. That said I found nosql databases extremely helpful for storing and querying large unstructured data. Mostly because it was really hard to build relations and to store this data in tables. Think Wikipedia for instan…

With Postgre you don't need to use a different database unless your workload is "bigdata". You can store relational data alongside unstructures json and query both.

99% of "Big Data" workloads will run happily in Postgres. There are petabyte Postreses (Postgri?) in Production, have been for a decade now...

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#78

Post by hvidgaard »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #74
hvidgaard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concider what a database does. It provides ACID properties and ability to query data. If all you need is writing data, the fastest you can do it write it directly to the disk, without the overhead a database comes with. Using a loadbalancer in front of a farm of cheap logging machines, and aggreate the data you need for analysis to a suitable machine.

they'd still need to query their stuff, I guess, so you'd need to trow in there somewhere something to aggregate logs and get the metrics they're tracking out of it - which can totally be done in streaming, without the need of going trough the logs every time, for most metrics.

With that amount of data, streaming and only saving aggregated data is the only sane way. With 1.2TB/hour there is a limit to how much historical data that can be saved anyway, and we're talking about 30% utilization of a 10gbps network interface, so it's beyond using single machines for most usecases.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#79

Post by mattmanser »

GenericsMotors wrote: post #73
meowface wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reliability and implementation ideas aside, MongoDB popularized document stores and document stores can sometimes be a good thing (even if there's usually little to no reason to prefer them to plain SQL databases for most applications). So they deserve credit there.

Agreed; though the way they did their marketing early on the message they conveyed was that document databases were here to replace RDBMSs. It was extremely dishonest.

To be fair to them, it wasn't just them, it was everyone.

Re: MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO

#80

Post by 0xbear »

dsmithatx wrote: post #44
myth_drannon wrote: post #26

It looks like the NoSQL movement was just a fad and plenty of startups got burned by it and some still stuck with this tech , writing inefficient workarounds for something that comes OTB with the regular SQL databases.

I worked with one of the largest ad publishing companies. They wanted to track data about every client served an ad. This generated over 1.2 Terabyte per hour of data when the MySQL master started to max out. We had the largest possible multiple core system. It was going to cost my client $30k to upgrade to SSD drives to get more out of MySQL. Also note we had to store this data on an expensive SAN in order to feed t…

The largest ad system ever, Google AdSense, used MySQL until circa 2014 when it moved to a completely custom DB backend, F1. F1 is also a SQL database, however.

Google does use bigtable and such where appropriate, but for anything more complex than dumb key/value you can't do much better than regular DBs. Some people think they can, but 99% of the time they're mistaken.

Post reply on HN