11–20 of 70 posts
Comparing to Facebook ' s TAO approach from yesterday post, I like the FB small set of api approach better. But that mainly focus on handling social graph with objects and associations. On the other hand, almost all my backend related features can be easily abstracted to those APIs.
Link? I see no relevant-looking "Facebook" or "TAO" in my recent RSS entries :(
Comparing to Facebook ' s TAO approach from yesterday post, I like the FB small set of api approach better. But that mainly focus on handling social graph with objects and associations. On the other hand, almost all my backend related features can be easily abstracted to those APIs.
> Comparing to Facebook ' s TAO approach from yesterday post Link? I see no relevant-looking "Facebook" or "TAO" in my recent RSS entries :(
Why the 'Ex-Googlers' in the title. Is it like a seal of approval or something?
So I cannot tell if this is aiming to be CA or AP. Having beaten my head against the CAP wall for a while, how does it deal with partitions?
.. so they've gone for CA and forgotten about P.
Why the 'Ex-Googlers' in the title. Is it like a seal of approval or something?
I've been looking recently at long-term digital preservation systems -- tools designed to archive large amounts of data for decades. This is the Library of Alexandria problem -- how do we preserve all this data we're generating against once-in-a-century disasters?
So this 2005 paper lists thirteen different threats to long-term archives: Media Failure; Hardware Failure; Software Failure; Communication Errors; Failure of Network Services; Media & Hardware Obsolescence; Software Obsolescence; Operator Error; Natural Disaster; External Attack; Internal Attack; Economic Failure; Organizational Failure.[1]
Fault-tolerant distributed data stores are exciting, because they solve a bunch of those problems off the bat -- media failure, hardware failure, communication errors, failure of network services, hardware obsolescence, and natural disaster.
They also help to address software failure, software obsolescence, and economic failure, because archival projects are always strapped for resources and it's great to rely on tools that exist for totally distinct, commercially-valuable reasons.
But that still leaves operator error, external attack, and internal attack -- burning down the Library.
Hence my original question: are there distributed data stores that can be configured to resist intentional destruction of data?
[1] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/rosenthal/11rosenthal.ht...
So I cannot tell if this is aiming to be CA or AP. Having beaten my head against the CAP wall for a while, how does it deal with partitions?
The design doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/11k2EmhLGSbViBvi6_zFEiKzu... says, "TBD: how to avoid partitions? Need to work out a simulation of the protocol to tune the behavior and see empirically how well it works" .. so they've gone for CA and forgotten about P.
Why the 'Ex-Googlers' in the title. Is it like a seal of approval or something?