Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danielmewes 3984 days ago
General query performance should be the same, if not better in this release (the improvements are not due to Raft, but due to other changes). We use Raft only to determine a consistent configuration. The queries themselves are executed in the same efficient way as before.

Note that in the beta, reconfiguring tables over servers on rotational disks can be slow https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/4279 . If you store large documents, you might also see some increases in memory usage during backfills https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/4474 . We're going to address both of these issues before the final release.
1 comments
DanWaterworth 3983 days ago
> We use Raft only to determine a consistent configuration. The queries themselves are executed in the same efficient way as before.

So, you've made the noob mistake in using Raft, where only configuration goes in the log and actual changes to data aren't replicated in the same manner.

link
danielmewes 3983 days ago
We have carefully designed the way data is versioned and replicated in RethinkDB 2.1 to result in a correct and consistent system in combination with the Raft-supported configuration management. For example we make sure that both components use consistent quorum definitions and the same membership information at any point.

This allows us to provide different degrees of consistency guarantees for the data, depending on the user's need. Our default is already pretty conservative, but allows uncommitted data to be visible by reads. In the strongest consistency mode, RethinkDB 2.1 provides full linearizability (see http://docs.rethinkdb.com/2.1/docs/consistency/ for details). We have confirmed this both theoretically as well as by testing the overall system using the Jepsen test framework.

link
DanWaterworth 3983 days ago
What do you gain? Let's say that you're right and you've managed actually managed to provide the guarantees that you say you have. By adding things to Raft, you haven't made it simpler and, having implemented Raft myself recently, I can attest that it's not the simplest of things to start with.

If you're looking for different degrees of consistency, I'm fairly sure you can do that without protocol level changes to Raft.

link