6 ms·

Don't know much about RAMCloud, but from the description: "Many more issues remain, such as whether we can provide higher-level features such as secondary inde

Don't know much about RAMCloud, but from the description: "Many more issues remain, such as whether we can provide higher-level features such as secondary indexes and multiple-object transactions without sacrificing the latency or scalability of the system. We are currently exploring several of these issues." Sounds it doesn't provide multi-key ACID transactions at the very least.

dchichkov 12y ago
Yes, It looks like it doesn't support multi-key ACID transactions. As per: https://ramcloud.atlassian.net/wiki/display/RAM/Deciding+Whether+to+Use+RAMCloud https://ramcloud.atlassian.net/wiki/display/RAM/Deciding+Whe... > If your application requires the higher-level data model features of a relational database, such as secondary indexes and transactions spanning multiple objects, then it may be difficult to get that application running on RAMCloud. The current RAMCloud data model is a key-value store with a few extension (such as conditional writes, table enumeration, and multi-read/multi-write operations); it does not yet support secondary indexes and multi-object transactions. Most of these operations can be implemented on top of the existing RAMCloud features, but it will take extra work and these operations will not run as fast as the built-in RAMCloud operations. We are currently working on adding higher-level features to RAMCloud. Still. Aside from that, it is free, and open source and gives hundred times better latency?
- misframer 12y ago
  > Still. Aside from that, it is free, and open source and gives hundred times better latency? It doesn't have the same guarantees. If you need those guarantees, then there's no comparison and it doesn't make sense to compare latencies.
  - dchichkov 12y ago
    I'm not so sure. Have the latencies claimed by FoundationDB been measured on multi-key transactions? And if you need these guaranties, it seems like "Most of these operations can be implemented on top of the existing RAMCloud features". I would expect it to be possible to implement that and stay well withing the latency budget, provided that a single-key durable write is 100 times faster.
    - nlavezzo 12y ago
      All of the transactions in the test noted in the blog are multi-key transactions. (20 key updates)
      - dchichkov 12y ago
        When claiming the 14.4MHz number, is that per 20-key update? Or a single key update in the 20-key update? And what's the latency on the 20-key update?
        itp 12y ago
        The writes we are measuring are individual keys, modified atomically in transactions of 20 keys at a time. So this test is doing 14 million writes per second as 720 thousand transactions per second.
    - jrallison 12y ago
      Multi-key transactions means coordination. Coordination is not cheap. You'll be paying a hefty cost somewhere.

dchichkov 12y ago

Yes, It looks like it doesn't support multi-key ACID transactions. As per: https://ramcloud.atlassian.net/wiki/display/RAM/Deciding+Whether+to+Use+RAMCloud https://ramcloud.atlassian.net/wiki/display/RAM/Deciding+Whe... > If your application requires the higher-level data model features of a relational database, such as secondary indexes and transactions spanning multiple objects, then it may be difficult to get that application running on RAMCloud. The current RAMCloud data model is a key-value store with a few extension (such as conditional writes, table enumeration, and multi-read/multi-write operations); it does not yet support secondary indexes and multi-object transactions. Most of these operations can be implemented on top of the existing RAMCloud features, but it will take extra work and these operations will not run as fast as the built-in RAMCloud operations. We are currently working on adding higher-level features to RAMCloud. Still. Aside from that, it is free, and open source and gives hundred times better latency?

misframer 12y ago
> Still. Aside from that, it is free, and open source and gives hundred times better latency? It doesn't have the same guarantees. If you need those guarantees, then there's no comparison and it doesn't make sense to compare latencies.
- dchichkov 12y ago
  I'm not so sure. Have the latencies claimed by FoundationDB been measured on multi-key transactions? And if you need these guaranties, it seems like "Most of these operations can be implemented on top of the existing RAMCloud features". I would expect it to be possible to implement that and stay well withing the latency budget, provided that a single-key durable write is 100 times faster.
  - nlavezzo 12y ago
    All of the transactions in the test noted in the blog are multi-key transactions. (20 key updates)
    - dchichkov 12y ago
      When claiming the 14.4MHz number, is that per 20-key update? Or a single key update in the 20-key update? And what's the latency on the 20-key update?
      - itp 12y ago
        The writes we are measuring are individual keys, modified atomically in transactions of 20 keys at a time. So this test is doing 14 million writes per second as 720 thousand transactions per second.
  - jrallison 12y ago
    Multi-key transactions means coordination. Coordination is not cheap. You'll be paying a hefty cost somewhere.