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

CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

cockroachlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 187 posts

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#81

Post by awalton »

dexterdog wrote: post #62
ardit33 wrote: post #58

And their fucking stupid name..... if they fail, they surely will be remembered as the company with the idiotic name. I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach".

Cockroaches are considered pretty durable right? In the 80s I remember the line was always that after the nukes landed there would only be cockroaches and twinkies left. That's not a bad thing to say about a database.

But you could also call it, "BombproofDB", "NukesafeDB", "GeodistDB" or something that gets the same idea across.

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#82

Post by crispinb »

awalton wrote: post #76
mlevental wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach". You used to work at a company called Yammer . God forbid they're not called tech.ai.io-ify. I think it's really funny that this comes up almost every time there's a post about CockroachDB. There were also a lot of people commenting on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693253 about foul language and such. I also remember being at a big confere…

People have been complaining about "The GIMP" for literally decades... (edit: in case this isn't clear, Spencer Kimball, the CEO of CockroachLabs, also created "The GIMP" at Berkeley). Sadly, names do matter. Cockroach seems to be a great DB from my poking at it, but there's definitely a visceral reaction some people have to the name (myself included) that has to be overcome first.

True enough. It's a really bad name.

On the other hand, someone would have to be astonishingly thick (or at best cavalier about their business) to take that seriously into account when deciding whether or not to use it.

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#83

Post by crispinb »

dexterdog wrote: post #62
ardit33 wrote: post #58

And their fucking stupid name..... if they fail, they surely will be remembered as the company with the idiotic name. I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach".

Cockroaches are considered pretty durable right? In the 80s I remember the line was always that after the nukes landed there would only be cockroaches and twinkies left. That's not a bad thing to say about a database.

This is the sort of obtuse insistence on narrow denotational semantics that makes everyone avoid engineers at parties ;)

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#84

Post by capsulecorp »

andrewflnr wrote: post #73
mlevental wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach". You used to work at a company called Yammer . God forbid they're not called tech.ai.io-ify. I think it's really funny that this comes up almost every time there's a post about CockroachDB. There were also a lot of people commenting on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693253 about foul language and such. I also remember being at a big confere…

They need a cute mascot, with a name. Then when people go "ew, it has a bug in it's name !!1!" we can say, "Aw, what's wrong with bugs? You're making Ricky cry."

I don't think its just that it has a bug in its name. I would venture to guess that if the name was Wasp DB, this issue wouldn't exist. It has more to do with the disgust trigger that many people have when they think of cockroaches.

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#85

Post by ahmedalsudani »

mjibson wrote: post #78
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing the Enterprise offering gives you is priority access.

Enterprise allows access to various features like distributed backup and restore.

Ah, my mistake. I stand corrected.

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#86

Post by netghost »

AlimJaffer wrote: post #68
segmondy wrote: post #55

I like what Cockroach is doing, I'm rooting for them to grow and survive. Unfortunately the only time I hear about it is when they post blogs. I never hear about it from other people.

raises hand we're using them extensively. They're our database of choice that we've paired with Nakama[1] which is an open-source, distributed server. Have nothing but great things to say about the database itself in terms of growing performance and the team behind it :). They've been great to us since day-1. [1] github.com/heroiclabs/nakama

What kind of workload are you using it for? What's been your biggest win while using it?

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#87

Post by tyingq »

mlevental wrote: post #64
ardit33 wrote: post #58

And their fucking stupid name..... if they fail, they surely will be remembered as the company with the idiotic name. I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach".

>I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach". You used to work at a company called Yammer . God forbid they're not called tech.ai.io-ify. I think it's really funny that this comes up almost every time there's a post about CockroachDB. There were also a lot of people commenting on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693253 about foul language and such. I also remember being at a big confere…

Maybe it's strategic and the eventual not-free commercially supported version will have a more palatable name?

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#88

Post by tyingq »

dexterdog wrote: post #62
ardit33 wrote: post #58

And their fucking stupid name..... if they fail, they surely will be remembered as the company with the idiotic name. I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach".

Cockroaches are considered pretty durable right? In the 80s I remember the line was always that after the nukes landed there would only be cockroaches and twinkies left. That's not a bad thing to say about a database.

WaterBearDB maybe?

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#89

Post by jordanlewis »

Rafuino wrote: post #63
arjunnarayan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer: 3 n1-highcpu-16 GCE VMs with Local SSDs attached. We're working on a complete disclosure document, with comprehensive reproduction steps to replicate all our numbers. This document should be out in a couple of weeks. We want to walk you through, command by command, on how to reproduce these numbers, and verify the results for yourself.

Thanks for the short answer. Would be good to know how many local SSDs are attached though for the 850 warehouse scenario. The TPC-C documentation says each warehouse maintains 100,000 items in their stock, but I can't surmise from that how much storage is required to hold 850 warehouses' worth of data. I'm impatient though so let me try to work through the #s myself. I'm using GCP's monthly reserved pricing in the U…

Each warehouse requires about 80 megabytes of storage, unreplicated. 1250 warehouses * 80 MB * 3-way replication = 300 GB, which comfortably fits in a 3-node cluster with 1 local SSD each.

Re: CockroachDB 2.0 Performance Makes Significant Strides

#90

Post by tyingq »

qaq wrote: post #74
pinars wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing. I was primarily answering the question above - in terms of how the numbers in the TPC-C benchmark fit in. I updated my comment to reflect the cost. I think what's interesting with TPC-C is that you can sort the results based on performance or price/performance. On the price/performance metric, SPARC looks expensive. Dell has a $20K SQL Anywhere cluster that can do 113K tx/min. I wonder if anyone tried to…

you do realize it's ancient hardware thats $300-400 USD on ebay now.

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=11...

Yeah, but 1700 cores worth. That's still a lot of $300 boxes. Like qty 53 Sparc T3-2's for example. Which seem to be $1200 to $2k on eBay. And unsupported, end of life, etc.

I'd compare CockroachDB's number to some more recent result with a similar number of cores. (If you can find one)

Post reply on HN