[dilyevsky]

I vouched for this comment (can we please not, folks?). Sure but many people dont run across AZ bc it costs a ton of money. Fsync alone dont save you but it sure makes it less likely to suffer data loss.

> Does a system that has implemented anti-corruption in the storage layer now get to lambast Redpanda, Pulsar, ZooKeeper etc because they didn't implement that?

Sure, why not? I think zk doesn’t do fsync too btw

[morelisp]

My gut feeling is that if your only AZ goes down (or all your AZs simultaneously), you're going to lose data period because your producers are now all stuck, your APIs are unavailable, etc. Whether the data loss begins at the exact moment power failed or a couple minutes before doesn't matter, vs. the additional cost to fsync constantly.

I mean it's good to know all the failure modes, but at the end of the day it's also good to know how much handling them will cost, and it's often not worth it.

[frant-hartm]

This is very practical way of looking at the problem and is true for majority of systems, but anyone serious enough about keeping their data, and not just pretending, has some kind of back pressure mechanism built in, so the messages will stop flowing if they can't be processed.

[morelisp]

Right, and best case that’s going to come back as 503s or 429s, and if that continues for any length of time your customers are going to view it as morally equivalent to data loss (or maybe worse, if the response has no reason for them to be tied to some event stream).

[dilyevsky]

producers stuck != data loss (if you use transactional commits at least). If you run in multiple regions you dont need multi az in a lot of architectures

[morelisp]

I don't mean because of some misfeature in the Kafka protocol, I mean because events are still coming in but have nowhere to go. Unless you built a spill as wide as your Kafka cluster. Which isn't worth it, so no one does it.

[ceencee]

Who is running single az deployments who also cares about data loss and availability? Seriously? I’ve personally supported 1000s of kafka deploys and this isn’t a thing in the cloud at least. There is no call for wanting fsync per message, it is an anti pattern and isn’t done because it isn’t necessary. Data loss in kafka isn't a real problem that hurts real world users at all.

[jakewins]

I was grabbing beer with a buddy who has ran some large - petabytes per month - Kafka deployments, and his experience was very much that Kafka will lose acked writes if not very carefully configured. He had direct experiences with data loss from JVM GC creating terrible flaky cluster conditions and, separately, from running out of disk on one cluster machine

[dilyevsky]

> There is no call for wanting fsync per message, it is an anti pattern and isn’t done because it isn’t necessary

1. Don't have to do it by message

2. It's used by many distributed db engines, kafka and (i think) zk are the outliers here, not the other way around

[eternalban]

Kafka is not a "db engine". zk is a "db engine" in the same way 'DNS' is a "db engine".

[ahachete]

Oh, DNS is definitely a database engine [1] ;)

[1]: https://dyna53.io

[dilyevsky]

Ah yes, the semantic argument. Fyi - pulsar and etcd do use fsync

[eternalban]

No one is arguing with you. You were making an argument based on a misinformed software category assertion and the error was pointed out. So r/fyi/til maybe?

[nemothekid]

I can't list names about the "unserious" people who aren't running multi-AZ, but this is the approach to durability that MongoDB took ~15 years ago and they have never lived it down.

It may just be that data reliability isn't a huge concern for messaging queues, so it's less of an issue, but pretending the risk isn't there doesn't help anyone.

[zerd]

Zookeeper absolutely does fsync, you can't disable it (without libeatmydata). It will log a warning if fsync is too slow as well.