Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is this satire? If not, that's a superb example of HDD.

You need HA and no matter your other requirements, or the ability of modern RDBMSs to scale up and cluster out, you're going NoSQL. Sorry Postgres, MySQL... You power some vast systems but you're just not webscale enough for Sphax here :)

On a serious note, scaling and replicating and clustering aren't trivial topics (yet) because there are so many different ways of doing it, to fit different performance profiles.

But it can be done. It can be done well. If a large HA database is a core part of your product of company, hire somebody who knows about databases to do databases.

It isn't satire, and I fail to see how what I said is HDD. I haven't mentioned the word scale once, that first paragraph is out of your imagination.

I worked with PostgreSQL, work currently with MySQL and Cassandra. With Cassandra you get HA out of the box, with PostgreSQL and MySQL not so much.

Your last paragraph is true, except most company can't afford that.

Your requirements might be perfect for Cassandra or another NoSQL engine, I'm not here to fight that.

It's the unwavering, front-line suggestion for NoSQL that I consider HDD. There was tons of this after Mongo started getting popular. But it's suggesting a satsuma as the best type of apple. Yeah, NoSQL does some stuff well, but there's a pile of things it doesn't handle at all. It's not a drop-in replacement and people treating it as such have wasted so much developer time trying to turn it back into a relational database.

HA isn't a feature exclusive to either type of database.

How much money do you lose (say... per second) when you have a minor (few seconds) of service interruption when switching to a hot fail-over RDBMS and waiting for it to be promoted to master?

We don't bill per second, so this really doesn't apply. Our customers see it almost instantly if we're down though, so it matters a lot.

Besides, that switch you're talking about just doesn't work out of the box. We never had any success with failover on our Galera cluster. Now, I'm not saying it's not doable, because I'm sure some teams have this work flawlessly. My point is that with Cassandra, it works out of the box without problems.

If you can't measure the actual impact, or don't know it, then it's hard for me to believe that it matters in any other terms than you'd really like it to matter.

For instance Twitter going down would be annoying, but global air traffic control going down would "matter".

Which I think might somewhat align with the original article's sentiment. Part of the hype cycle is driven by a hubris that we often engage in. Which is that we want our problems to be bigger and more important than they might actually be.

You're free to believe it or not, fact is our customers require that uptime. If that requires me to use some "hype" technologies then so be it.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact