[info] [silk] Future is CLOUDy

[Eugen Leitl]

----- Forwarded message from "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> -----

From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:15:38 -0800
To: silklist at lists.hserus.net
Subject: Re: [silk] Future is CLOUDy
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
Reply-To: silklist at lists.hserus.net


On Dec 26, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>J. Andrew Rogers [26/12/07 11:45 -0800]:
>>- The use of MySQL is based in fanboi-ism, not rational technology  
>>selection.  Google is as prone to this as any other tech  
>>organization.
>
>I am sorry but I have to disagree. We made an informed choice about  
>seven
>or eight years ago to stick to mysql - for an email provider with 76
>million ++ users, on the fly replication of userdb and such.


Oh, seven or eight years ago I would absolutely agree with you.  At  
that time there was no other choice worth considering if you could not  
afford Oracle.


>When you want blazing fast searches on a large db (but a simple one)
>mysql's the db for you. [well it was then .. and if we change we'd  
>have to
>rip the guts out of more than one system and migrate massive databases
>over, so .. as it works quite fine, we'll stick with it]


These days, PostgreSQL is faster by almost any measure than MySQL,  
even for simple queries, and comes with a number of benefits.  That  
10-20% speed increase with each PostgreSQL release compounded into  
something interesting -- for OLTP it is getting very close to Oracle.   
I think most of MySQL's popularity is legacy, and it is not very  
portable as an environment.  Migrations between Oracle and PostgreSQL  
are easier than, say, PostgreSQL and MySQL.

My original comment was more that Google using MySQL -- even when an  
inappropriate choice -- was not particularly based on merit as best as  
I've ever been able to figure.  Not my problem for sure, but it is  
interesting to observe because some technologies they seem to change  
on a whim.  The PostgreSQL engine, to use it as the obvious counter- 
example, has been hacked many times to support robust distributed  
systems that are much larger than anything you see people doing with  
MySQL, being a much more hackable system generally.

Given no legacy to support, I think Google would still choose MySQL.   
The "why" is an interesting question of culture, and undoubtedly has  
ramifications with respect to the success and failure of companies  
over the long-term.


>>- Cringely pretty conclusively demonstrates in the article that he  
>>has no idea what "cloud computing" actually is, what you can and  
>>cannot do with it, or why it is important.  Messy transaction  
>>theoretic and latency issues do not magically disappear when Google  
>>implements yet another compute cloud.
>
>Well yes, I do cringe, quite a lot, when I read quite a lot of his  
>work.
>But distributed systems work rather faster when most of them are on  
>the
>same switch, in the same datacenter, I dare say?


Yes, definitely.  Even between geographically separated data centers  
there is likely to be more effective bandwidth than between any one  
data center and an individual user.  The interesting thing is that  
most of these services currently are not distributed systems in the  
classic sense, but merely high availability conventional services.   
Even if you built a data center infrastructure that allows seamless  
data/service integration across the data center, that only solves part  
of the problem.

A bigger problem is that in many cases it is not possible, politically  
or technically, to backhaul data to a single data center.  How do you  
optimize data and service integration in this case while maintaining  
the illusion of the "cloud"?  Literature contains most (but not all)  
of the answers to this question, but no one seems to be thinking about  
it much and it is an early architecture decision.  Hell, most of these  
cloud computing services are barely thinking about simple data  
integration between unrelated applications at this point.


Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers






----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE