51–60 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They offer the equivalent of Amazon S3, SimpleDB and SQS, but nothing comparable to this
Can you elaborate how this is different and not comparable? Azure's table service offers the same automatic partition management, unlimited per-table scalability, composite keys, range queries, and availability guarantees. The linked paper goes into more details.
I simply do not see how competing cloud vendors can keep up with this. Most of them are still struggling to provide anything beyond a simple API to start/stop machines.
Well, Azure has been offering a similar NoSQL service for a few years now. http://sigops.org/sosp/sosp11/current/2011-Cascais/printable...
Table Storage does not allow any other indexes other than the main primary ones (Row Key and Partition Key). You also cannot store complex object within fields and use them in a query. You basically just serialize the data and stuff it into the field.
The dynamic schema is very nice if you can leverage it but the actually query support is TERRIBLE. (Sorry Microsoft, I'm a fanboy but you blew it here). There is no Order By or event Count support which makes a lot of things very difficult. Want to know how many "color=green" records there are? Guess what, you're going to retrieve all those rows and then count them yourself. They're starting to listen to the community and have just recently introduced upserts and projection (select). I would love to see them adopt something like MongoDB instead :)
For more issues check out: http://www.mygreatwindowsazureidea.com/forums/34192-windows-...
Edit - For what its worth. We've moved more things to SQL Azure now that it has Federation support. Scalability with the power of SQL. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2011/12/13/buil...
Trying to read thru all the hype, this looks like Riak hosted on machines with SSDs, with less features, and a nice billing system in front of it. Of course for people who want a hosted solution, the fact that it is hosted, is what gives it a lot of value. There haven't been a lot of hosted NoSQL databases, at least on this scale and availability, out there. But technologically, what's new here? Is there anything her…
A feature request (I see that Werner is reading this message thread): for development it woud be very nice to have the Java AWS SDK have a local emulation mode for SimpleDB and DynamoDB. This would allow development while flying or otherwise off the Internet. Similar functionality as AppEngine's local dev mode.
Pricing: $0.01 per hour for every 10 units of Write Capacity and $0.01 per hour for every 50 units of Read Capacity.
As someone who has grappled in the past and is grappling again with the issues of pricing a database-as-a-service though, this is very much a non-trivial issue. If you have nice scaling characteristics and you want to charge the minimal price, your price isn't going to be predictable. Essentially, what Amazon have done here is to set a cap and then charge you the cap irrespective of actual usage, which seems to be the model that's winning on the cloud.
Trying to read thru all the hype, this looks like Riak hosted on machines with SSDs, with less features, and a nice billing system in front of it. Of course for people who want a hosted solution, the fact that it is hosted, is what gives it a lot of value. There haven't been a lot of hosted NoSQL databases, at least on this scale and availability, out there. But technologically, what's new here? Is there anything her…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They offer the equivalent of Amazon S3, SimpleDB and SQS, but nothing comparable to this
How is this vastly different to Azure Tables?
Reads per $0.01 = (50.60).60 = 180000
Writes per $0.01 = (10.60).60 = 36000
Assuming that you hit your usage is at 100% capacity then from a read prospective DynamoDB is half the price. Writes are much more expensive but many applications are heavily read oriented.
DynamoDB claims single digit millisecond reads, azure tables does not (from my experience.)
Azure tables have a maximum performance over a given partition table of 500 requests per second and over the whole account of 5,000 requests per second. DynamoDB does not state this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazurestorage/archive/2010/05/...
To put this into context:
Assume a system with 5000 writes per second and 50000 reads here are the costs:
AWS Reads: $240 AWS Writes: $120 Aws Total: $360
Azure Reads: $4320 Azure Writes: $432 Azure Total: $4752
Seems like quite a difference for a decent sized read heavy application.