On 10-09-2010 19:51, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: > So it seems the only potential use case for Redis is public > clouds (Rackspace), for reasons of scalability.
This has been mentioned a couple of times. I acknowledge the fact that the NoSQL projects have excellent reputations in terms scalability, but for Redis specifically, I just don't see it. It's got fast master-slave replication, but you can only write to the master, and you can only have one master, AFAICT. That doesn't sounds fantastically scalable to me, to be honest. > My real hope was that we would be able to have both Redis and SQL > implementations, and we'd show that not only did Redis have all these > problems, but we didn't get anything in return: it would be both slower > (because of 1+N) and less scalable (because of the need to keep all the keys > in memory); we'd then deprecate Redis. However, we need to stay focused on > Nova and not proving a SQL/NoSQL point - if we know what the outcome will > be, let's just go with the right choice and not expend effort on what is > likely to be a technical dead-end. If someone wants to write a Redis > back-end so that it can be benchmarked and deprecated, that's great; > otherwise I think we should merge the patch and forget about NoSQL. > > If we let Redis get into V1, then we're stuck supporting it, and we'll have > to solve all the above problems. I would prefer that development effort be > focused on building IaaS, not a relational DB on top of a key-value store. I agree completely on all of this. -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nova Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nova More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
