| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Jay, I share your concern about pulling Redis support, but I've talked already with Vish about getting that back in shortly. That issue aside, is there anything else blocking this one? Joshua On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Okay, so I was not debating the usefulness of Redis or any particular > key-value store. What I was concerned about was the sheer size of the > patch and its impact on other branches so close to the code freeze > date. > > But, I've said my piece (peace?) :) It sounds like all but myself and > Rick are not troubled and feel the patch should move forward quickly. > With concerns noted, I'm willing to see the patch go through as well, > if only to see forward momentum and ease the migration burden post > Austin. > > -jay > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Soren Hansen <soren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 : nova@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nova > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nova > Post to : nova@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nova > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
