Skip to main content

distributed systems; database vs filesystem replication

This is just a note to my future self. I just finished watching the last 10 minutes of a goto; presentation that I started a few months ago and it reset a few of my core architecture beliefs and has be going on the bath of thinking outside the box again. While I agree that distributed systems with heavily co-mingled semantics need protection whether it's locks or some other mechanism. But if you can partition the work into it's simplest form it's likely that (a) locks are not needed (b) the simplest implementations will reduce failure and when there is a failure it's easy to fix.

I'm thinking about an application design that uses the filesystem and filesystem replication instead of DB replication for keeping systems in sync; in contrast to using a relational system. Many of the requisites for an RDBMS are also available in the basic filesystem. There is a reality that if the RDBMS is not used the right way then the ACID features of the "system" are degraded, however, implementing a full ACID system will also reduce the efficiency/throughput of the "system".

This might sound like nonsense except that these are notes for myself and it's based on experience. For example in a payment gateway the host-capture subsystem from the POS perspective is pretty simple. Store the request and the response with some basic telemetry. Choose the one path that makes the most logical sense for the transaction and replicate the data across all nodes.

When a transaction arrives that requires information from a previous transaction there is enough information in the second transaction to locate the first as a hash function O(1) in the filesystem. It's no more or less complicated than a relational system except that it does not require a separate DB that is itself replicated.

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…