If you are looking for a serverless alternative to JetStream, check out https://s2.dev
Pros: unlimited streams with the durability of object storage – JetStream can only do a few K topics
Cons: no consumer groups yet, it's on the agenda
Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
81–90 of 176 posts
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
certainly a narrative that is popular among the grey beard crowd, yes. in pretty much every field i've worked on, the opposite problem has been much much more common.
what's the opposite problem statement?
The ivory tower standing in the way of delivering value I think.
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not flushing on every write is a very common tradeoff of speed over durability. Filesystems, databases, all kinds of systems do this. They have some hacks to prevent it from corrupting the entire dataset, but lost writes are accepted. You can often prevent this by enabling an option or tuning a parameter. > I wouldn't trust a product that doesn't default to safest options This would make most products suck, and requi…
In the defense of PG, for better or worse as far as I know, the 'what is RDBMS default' falls into two categories; - Read Committed default with MVCC (Oracle, Postgres, Firebird versions with MVCC, I -think- SQLite with WAL falls under this) - Read committed with write locks one way or another (MSSQL default, SQLite default, Firebird pre MVCC, probably Sybase given MSSQL's lineage...) I'm not aware of any RDBMS that…
> I -think- SQLite with WAL falls under this
No. SQLite is serializable. There's no configuration where you'd get read committed or repeatable read.
In WAL mode you may read stale data (depending on how you define stale data), but if you try to write in a transaction that has read stale data, you get a conflict, and need to restart your transaction.
There's one obscure configuration no one uses that's read uncommitted. But really, no one uses it.
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#84> 3.4 Lazy fsync by Default Why? Why do some databases do that? To have better performance in benchmarks? It’s not like that it’s ok to do that if you have a better default or at least write a lot about it. But especially when you run stuff in a small cluster you get bitten by stuff like that.
I always wondered why the fsync has to be lazy. It seems like the fsync's can be bundled up together, and the notification messages held for a few millis while the write completes. Similar to TCP corking. There doesn't need to be one fsync per consensus.
That was my immediate thought as well, under the assumption the lazy fsync is for performance. I imagine in some situations, delaying the write until the write confirmation actually happens is okay (depending on delay), but it also occurred to me that if you delay enough, and you have a busy enough system, and your time to send the message is small enough, the number of open connections you need to keep open can be some small or large multiple of the amount you would need without delaying the confirmation message to actual write time.
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#85Curious about the differences between content on aphyr.com/tags/jepsen and jepsen.io/analyses. I recently discovered aphyr.com and was excited about the potential insights!
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#86Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
certainly a narrative that is popular among the grey beard crowd, yes. in pretty much every field i've worked on, the opposite problem has been much much more common.
what's the opposite problem statement?
People overly beholden to tried and true 'known' way of addressing a problem space and not considering/belittling alternatives. Many of the things that have been most aggressively 'bitter lesson'ed in the last decade fall into this category.
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#88If you are looking for a serverless alternative to JetStream, check out https://s2.dev Pros: unlimited streams with the durability of object storage – JetStream can only do a few K topics Cons: no consumer groups yet, it's on the agenda
Have you tried running Jepsen against it?
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#89Half-expected tbh, but didn’t expect to be this bad.
Just use redpanda.
Re: Jepsen: NATS 2.12.1
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's the opposite problem statement?
People overly beholden to tried and true 'known' way of addressing a problem space and not considering/belittling alternatives. Many of the things that have been most aggressively 'bitter lesson'ed in the last decade fall into this category.
Like this bug report?
The things that have been "disrupted" haven't delivered - Blockchains are still a scam, Food delivery services are worse than before (Restaurants are worse off, the people making the deliveries are worse off), Taxis still needed to go back and vet drivers to ensure that they weren't fiends.