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

FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

foundationdb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#21

Post by rubyn00bie »

Here's one of my favorite articles on FoundationDB, where it (FDB) passes Jepsen first try: https://web.archive.org/web/20150312112556/http://blog.found...

> I ran FoundationDB Key-Value Store through every nemesis in Jepsen - including those that found failures in other databases - and FoundationDB passed all of them with flying colors.

FoundationDB is one of the coolest pieces of technology I've used in the past decade. The tuple keyspace is incredibly useful, so are the multi-key transactions. I've physically killed the power on an FDB node and FDB cluster; multiple times (heh, home servers)... and every time the cluster or node just comes back.

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#22

Post by ryanworl »

sigstoat wrote: post #20
jeffbee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. In general I think people who think they want to do FoundationDB owe themselves a serious contemplation of the cost/benefit of using Cloud Spanner instead. Obviously you cannot do your own fault injection testing of Spanner, but it does have end-to-end checksums.

> There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. that's nuts. rocks could've been added as a storage engine to fdb far more easily.

This is currently in progress right now.

https://github.com/apple/foundationdb/blob/e7d7b39f12afa8ea2...

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#23

Post by sigstoat »

e12e wrote: post #17

This seems like a good place to ask - are there any new and exiting FOSS "application" worth checking out? I recall from the initial publication of the source - there was references to a great sql layer? I don't know if a FOSS work-a-like ever materialized? Other things I'd hoped for was a network filesystem/blob layer, like maybe s3/nfs/webdavfs compatible? What are people building on top of foundationdb today? Ed:…

peruse the fdb forum. they produce document and record layers now. there are community layers of varying quality for a network block device, a filesystem, and a few other things.

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#24

Post by jeffbee »

sigstoat wrote: post #20
jeffbee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. In general I think people who think they want to do FoundationDB owe themselves a serious contemplation of the cost/benefit of using Cloud Spanner instead. Obviously you cannot do your own fault injection testing of Spanner, but it does have end-to-end checksums.

> There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. that's nuts. rocks could've been added as a storage engine to fdb far more easily.

For the record, I said the same thing. But it's a management problem because on the one hand you have a known open project with demonstrable flaws, and on the other you have your own in-house developers and you will tend to discount the bugs they haven't written yet.

But, also for the same record, thinking you can implement a reliable, globally-replicated key-value store on top of FoundationDB that is cheaper and better than Cloud Spanner may be evidence of the same cognitive bias.

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#25

Post by sigstoat »

jeffbee wrote: post #24
sigstoat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. that's nuts. rocks could've been added as a storage engine to fdb far more easily.

For the record, I said the same thing. But it's a management problem because on the one hand you have a known open project with demonstrable flaws, and on the other you have your own in-house developers and you will tend to discount the bugs they haven't written yet. But, also for the same record, thinking you can implement a reliable, globally-replicated key-value store on top of FoundationDB that is cheaper and bet…

> But, also for the same record, thinking you can implement a reliable, globally-replicated key-value store on top of FoundationDB that is cheaper and better than Cloud Spanner may be evidence of the same cognitive bias.

man, good thing nobody made any claim like that.

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#26

Post by victor106 »

georgelyon wrote: post #4

FDB is an awesome and unique piece of software (I attribute quite a bit of Snowflake's success to FDB). I've also had the pleasure of meeting some folks from the original team and they are true engineers. Does anyone know if/when Redwood (the new storage engine) has landed / will land?

> I attribute quite a bit of Snowflake's success to FDB

How so?

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#28

Post by ssgao »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #27

They got acquihired by apple, didn't they? Was. Fdb ever oss'd? Is it CP or AP? Comments seem to imply AP

FoundationDB is Apache 2.0 https://github.com/apple/foundationdb/blob/master/LICENSE

It is CP per https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/cap-theorem.html

Re: FoundationDB: A distributed, unbundled, transactional key value store [pdf]

#29

Post by foobiekr »

victor106 wrote: post #26
georgelyon wrote: post #4

FDB is an awesome and unique piece of software (I attribute quite a bit of Snowflake's success to FDB). I've also had the pleasure of meeting some folks from the original team and they are true engineers. Does anyone know if/when Redwood (the new storage engine) has landed / will land?

> I attribute quite a bit of Snowflake's success to FDB How so?

Snowflake is the biggest deployment of fdb in the world after iCloud.
Post reply on HN