MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
paperplanes.de
MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#2calling him an idiot? I'm sure this happens a lot, but as you said nobody wants to talk about it for fear of receiving the welcoming carriage that this guy received.
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#3If I had a nickel for every time a coworker used "-9" for no other reason than being in a rush and not grok'ing what a bad idea it is.
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#4This is exciting. MongoDB (and the suite of libraries building up around it) has made prototyping web applications an order of magnitude easier than using SQL. Lack of single-server durability, however, is a showstopper in production, before you've grown enough to justify scaling the database beyond one machine.
In my case, that meant going back to MySQL once our schema was finalized (sadly). Looks like that won't be necessary in the not-so-near future, which means MongoDB is usable in new projects without worrying about replication before otherwise necessary.
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#5I'm pleased Mongo is getting single server durability. I have never understood why it got so popular without this feature. I'd love to know why people choose Mongo over say, Riak, or CouchDB, as the majority of projects don't need more than one server.
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#6I'm pleased Mongo is getting single server durability. I have never understood why it got so popular without this feature. I'd love to know why people choose Mongo over say, Riak, or CouchDB, as the majority of projects don't need more than one server.
Would that be that majority that doesn't really care about uptime?
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#7I'm pleased Mongo is getting single server durability. I have never understood why it got so popular without this feature. I'd love to know why people choose Mongo over say, Riak, or CouchDB, as the majority of projects don't need more than one server.
Would that be that majority that doesn't really care about uptime?
[deleted]
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#8I am never sure what niche MongoDB is supposed to fill.
If I want a large cluster to handle "big data" Riak or Cassandra seem to fit the bill better.
If I want speed Redis is great.
If I want a schema-less SQL-like (but not SQL) database, MongoDB?
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#9If I had a nickel for every time a coworker used "-9" for no other reason than being in a rush and not grok'ing what a bad idea it is.
I don't know if this is what happened to the reluctant hero of this story, but if the database really had hung, and wasn't responding to "sensible" methods of shutting down, what are you supposed to do besides kill -9? (By "sensible" I mean something the DB could trap in order to finish saving a consistent state to disk - shutdown command, -INT, -QUIT, etc.)
(I'm not excusing trying -9 as a first resort, but if a process is deadlocked (or pegging the CPU in a tight loop) and won't respond to -QUIT, there's not much else you can do.)
Re: MongoDB, Data Durability and Improvements coming in 1.8
#10I'm pleased Mongo is getting single server durability. I have never understood why it got so popular without this feature. I'd love to know why people choose Mongo over say, Riak, or CouchDB, as the majority of projects don't need more than one server.
Because they market infinite scalability, insane speeds, and they have a nice API. But people don't realize that, while the speed is fast, you're driving without a seatbelt, and the scalability story is more or less false. They do have a nice API though.