does anyone know if it works with django or a way to make it working? it should be a matter of a connector, no?
Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
311–320 of 456 posts
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Helpful feedback, we do have a development plan for $99, but it's not really intended for production workloads. If you only have 10 GB of data we'd heavily recommend going with something like RDS or Heroku Postgres. At that amount of data single node Postgres works great.
RDS is not single node - its multi-AZ replicated. And that's what we are paying 300$ instead of 99$ for. Imagine.. RDS is literally the ONLY place where you can buy a 10 GB data multi-AZ replicated, snapshotted and managed postgresql. Its pretty much a monopoly, now that Google seems to have officially closed the book on ever supporting postgresql.
>Google seems to have officially closed the book on ever supporting postgresql.
Er, that's a bet I'd strongly suggest you didn't make.
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spanner is related to MySQL at Google: a product with Spanner's semantics was required to replace MySQL for some important business operations ( https://landing.google.com/sre/book/chapters/communication-a... ) it's actually hard to beat MySQL for a lot of things. i was skeptical about this when I joined google, but as an SRE on the MySQL team around this time, I gained a lot of respect for it.
That is an interesting way to look at it; I have wrestled with MDB[1] while working at Google, it was a ginormous MySQL database (possibly one of the world's largest). And I would characterize Spanner's relationship this way, "If you think you are actually going to build an ACID database that scales, then make sure you can support the MySQL api that MDB uses and we'll see just how well it scales." I don't know if any…
I don't know why you think MDB is ginormous by MySQL standards; it was actually quite modest.
Everything you need to know is here: https://research.google.com/pubs/pub38125.html
it walks through the architecture of the Ads DB, the issues with replacing MySQL, and some of the heroic efforts to implement it via Spanner.
At the time, I asked the team why they used MySQL instead of Postgres (which I prefer) and the short answer was: MySQL replication worked at the time.
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#314I wonder why they charge a minimum of $0.90 per node-hour when they offer VMs for as little as $0.008/hr. This is hugely useful even for single-person startups, so why charge a minimum of ~$8,000 per year?
To be fair, you shouldn't even run MySQL on an f1-micro. This is more on par with an 18 vcpu raw server, before you'd even consider any value that the software provides. I'd certainly love to see us get to a world where we can split up a single spanner "install" in an isolated, multitenant manner, but even for a small company, $8k/year is admittedly a small fraction of one engineer. At a company with several, you can…
> even for a small company, $8k/year is admittedly a small fraction of one engineer
This is certainly true, but overlooks the fact that many major products start out as experimental projects, and $8k/year is a significant investment for an experiment.
If there's a reasonable upgrade path from traditional databases like MySQL and Postgres this shouldn't be a big deal, but if the answer is "rewrite your app" it will probably be a friction point for adoption.
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you read that Cloud Spanner has a $1,000 per month minimum spend? I can't seem to find any mention of this.
Minimum 3 nodes * node pricing of $.90/hour = 3 0.9 24*30 = 1944/month.
Where is this 3-node minimum mentioned? URL please?
Edit: Looks like maybe you're referring to the recommended 3 node minimum in production mentioned at https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/instance-configuration
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#316This release shows the different philosophies of Google vs Amazon in an interesting way. Google prefers building advanced systems that let you do things "the old way" but making them horizontally scalable. Amazon prefers to acknowledge that network partitions exist and try to get you to do things "the new way" that deals with that failure case in the software instead of trying to hide it. I'm not saying either system…
I would phrase it as: AWS prioritizes building blocks that support very high throughput and avoid leaky abstractions at all costs, and they're happy to push forward as long as these criteria are met. IMO they really succeed at this goal. Minus specific bugs that they're generally good about acknowledging, their services reliably do what they say they're going to. And they definitely solve a lot of problems for you, e…
I would probably compare Dynamo to Google Datastore (released.. 8 years earlier?), or even to Bigtable, which went GA last summer. I'm not sure Spanner matches up with anything AWS at this point.
(work on google Cloud)
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has a history of sales and support that will allow them a certain longevity. They also have less "brand hate" than Oracle. I dont think MSSQL is going to be like Sybase any time soon, but I probably wouldn't focus on that stack starting now if you are into the startup or california scene. For many places in the USA, MS is the way to go. EDIT: Also, most DB users don't need global-scale databases.
I'm not saying MS is going to abandon the platform, but to me it seems entirely possible that "very soon" these cloud platforms using cheap, shared, commodity hardware might be so affordable and technically capable that it might be a no brainer choice unless you have a very good reason to use MSSQL (kind of the opposite today, on-prem by default, cloud if necessary).
What it will do is encourage MSFT to drop the cost of MSSQL licenses in Azure.
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#318Congratulations to the Spanner team for becoming part of the Google public cloud! And for those wondering, this is why Oracle wants billions of dollars from Google for "Java Copyright Infringement" because the only growth market for Oracle right now is their hosted database service, and whoops Google has a better one now. It will be interesting if Amazon and Microsoft choose to compete with Google on this service. If…
It seems like Oracle could have a play here, working on adapting cloud infrastructure tools for managing on-premises data centers. That keeps them in play for customers who can't put their data in the cloud and those that haven't because they're already Oracle customers.
This pendulum swings. We're pretty near the apex now. A little work on ergonomics and these tools could be turn-key, and back we go to decentralized hardware.
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#319The team here at Quizlet did a lot of performance testing on Spanner with one of our MySQL workloads to see if it's an option for us. Here are the test results: https://quizlet.com/blog/quizlet-cloud-spanner
Quickly skimmed this.. how is comparing Cloud Spanner to a VM running MySQL comparable?
it isn't
Re: Introducing Cloud Spanner, a Global Database Service
#320The team here at Quizlet did a lot of performance testing on Spanner with one of our MySQL workloads to see if it's an option for us. Here are the test results: https://quizlet.com/blog/quizlet-cloud-spanner
I'm curious about how you have MySQL configured. If the query cache is enabled you will see MySQL plateau. There's also the all important innodb_buffer_pool_size and innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit. See this for more info https://www.percona.com/blog/2013/09/20/innodb-performance-o...