Samba on Scale: Difference between revisions
From SambaWiki
Slowfranklin (talk | contribs) (→Links) |
Slowfranklin (talk | contribs) (→Links) |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
* [http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol7/p181-bailis.pdf Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and Limitations] |
* [http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol7/p181-bailis.pdf Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and Limitations] |
||
* [https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/45855.pdf Spanner, TrueTime and The CAP Theorem] |
* [https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/45855.pdf Spanner, TrueTime and The CAP Theorem] |
||
* [https://paxos.systems/ Paxos Made Moderately Complex] |
|||
Revision as of 14:14, 4 May 2023
List of scalable Key/Value Stores
For an overview of Consistency Models see Jepsen or Wikipedia. Note: LWT are defined as multiple operations on a single key.
| Name | Type | Consistency Model | Transactions | C Client | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctdb | K/V | Volatile DBs: Prefix-Linearizable? Persistent DBs: Strict Serializability |
No Yes |
yes | |
| etcd | K/V | Linearizability | LWT ("mini") | yes | Why? |
| Ceph Rados | K/V | Linearizability | LWT via Object Operations | yes | |
| FoundationDB | K/V | Strict Serializability | yes | yes | Architecture review |
| YugabyteDB | SQL | Single-key Linearizability with LWT | yes | yes | |
| Apache Cassandra 1-4 | CQL | Configurable, highest: Single-key Linearizability with LWT |
yes | yes | |
| Apache Cassandra 5 | CQL | Upcoming: Strict Serializability [1] |
yes | yes | |
| CockroachDB | SQL | Serializable+, Strong Partition Serializability | LWT | yes | Jepsen |
| ScyllaDB | CQL | Single-key Linearizability with LWT | LWT | yes | Intel DPDK via Seastar |
| tikv | K/V | Strong Consistency[2] | yes (Percolator based) | no (C++) | |
| Apache Pegasus | ? | ? | ? | no (C++) | |
| Apache HBase | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| Apache Ignite | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Rapid Samba dbwrap backend prototyping
A new dbwrap backend called dbwrap_py that calls into Python for the database operations. Available backends:
Strict-serializability, can we get away with something weaker?
- How to talk about consistency and isolation in distributed DBs
- Correctness Anomalies Under Serializable Isolation
- Consistency Guarantees in Distributed Systems Explained Simply
- Strict-serializability, but at what cost, for what purpose?
- CockroachDB's consistency model
List of Opensource Clustered Filesystems
| Name | Built on-top of Object Storage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ceph | yes | |
| GlusterFS | no | |
| JuiceFS | yes | |
| MooseFS | no | |
| ObjectiveFS | yes | |
| Lustre | no | |
| BeegFS | no |
Links
- Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball
- A Comparison of Scalable Database Isolation Levels
- Correctness Anomalies Under Serializable Isolation
- Linearizability vs Serializability, and Distributed Transactions
- Comparison of a few SQL and no-SQL DBs
- Summary of Paxos, Multipaxos, Raft, Epaxos and ACCORD
- Nice Summary of Consistency Models and Issues in CockroachDB
- FUSE Filesystem on-top of FoundationDB
- YCSB
- Benchant YCSB Ranking
- How FoundationDB works
- Fast General Purpose Transactions in Apache Cassandra
- Comparing Distributed Transaction Architectures for the Cloud Era
- MIT Distributed Systems Course
- Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and Limitations
- Spanner, TrueTime and The CAP Theorem
- Paxos Made Moderately Complex