On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Hutchings <[email protected]> wrote: > I think at least we should have the option of vbuckets or > ketama/weighted ketama (which was the scheme I was dreaming of when I > thought of how I would do it originally). Whether that be in a plugin > or option, I am undecided and am flexible on it.
As I just replied to Stewart's mail, I want to implement a sharding solution that deals effectively (read, flexibly) with problems that relate closely to sharding - atleast a simple master-slave setup to handle failures, addition/removal of nodes (migration of data). I am confronted with three choices here: 1. Start with vbuckets to provide a simple abstraction to sharding and problems in its scope that probably pop up often (do they?) when dealing with a cluster - failure, migration of shard, and addition/removal of nodes. Then go for a pluggable partitioning scheme (if needed). 2. If the idea is to include ketama for its simplicity, it seems simple to map ketama to vbuckets. Work on vbuckets + ketama. 3. Start with a pluggable partitioning scheme, and later take care of failure, migration of shard, and addition/removal of nodes. I am more inclined towards the first, followed by second, and then third. I need some real help here in deciding a direction. I think a simple solution here is to answer two questions here: 1. Decide whether a pluggable hashing scheme is even needed or not? - My answer is no. 2. What is the scope of the project? - Again, I have given my answer. I really need others to answer this. Please. -- Anurag Priyam http://about.me/yeban/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
