What you said was right on. I just wanted to add a few things.
The coordinator is only involved for recovering from failures, so the cluster can still serve requests until server (non-coordinator) nodes start failing too.
I would also add that if there is a intra-datacenter partition so severe as to violate HyperDex's failure assumptions, it will likely impact applications built on top of HyperDex as well. It would be necessary to survive such failures with an inter-datacenter system (which could be built on top of HyperDex).
Without more context graphs like that is pretty useless.. For all we know they just invented those numbers. I'm not saying they did, but you get my point..
Those numbers seem way to low for running on the same machine, and if not shouldn't the network be the bottleneck and show similar results for both?
I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, just as I'm sure they picket benchmarks that makes themselves look good.
Comments
What you said was right on. I just wanted to add a few things.
The coordinator is only involved for recovering from failures, so the cluster can still serve requests until server (non-coordinator) nodes start failing too.
I would also add that if there is a intra-datacenter partition so severe as to violate HyperDex's failure assumptions, it will likely impact applications built on top of HyperDex as well. It would be necessary to survive such failures with an inter-datacenter system (which could be built on top of HyperDex).
Well first Thank you for providing another data storage possibility, and a great one at that.
I'd just like to ask - the benchmarks where HyperDex beats even Redis - these are strictly clustered benchmarks - is that true?
Or is the way HyperDex stores data so efficient, that it beats Redis even on a single core / single thread?
Thanks!
Without more context graphs like that is pretty useless.. For all we know they just invented those numbers. I'm not saying they did, but you get my point..
Those numbers seem way to low for running on the same machine, and if not shouldn't the network be the bottleneck and show similar results for both?
I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, just as I'm sure they picket benchmarks that makes themselves look good.