Database Clusters for the Masses

grugruto writes "Cluster of databases is no more the privilege of few high-end commercial databases, open-source solutions are striking back! ObjectWeb, an Apache-like group, has announced the availability of Clustered JDBC (or C-JDBC). C-JDBC is an open-source software that implements a new concept called RAIDb (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Databases). It is simple: take a bunch of MySQL or PostgreSQL boxes, choose your RAIDb level (partitioning, replication, ...) and you obtain a scalable and fault tolerant database cluster."

Comments

Performance?

[deranged unix nut]

Hmm, interesting idea. I didn't see performance listed as a feature.

I wonder how much slower my query will be when the data is spread across several machines. I'd imagine that a few complex queries that aren't correctly optimized would bring this system to it's knees rather quickly.

Re:Performance?

[jsin]

Database clustering is typically used for high-avaliability, not performance.

There are better ways to improve the performance of a database, horizontal partitioning, federated servers, etc.

This would be very cool if there was a generic implementation; we build many Microsoft SQL clusters and just the hardware requirements for an MSCS cluster easily exceed $50k, let alone the licensing...as an MCDBA I'd consider an open source solution if I could use it as a back-end ot an ASP/VB.NET application, just to save the licensing $$ for consulting! ; )

Where are the benchmarks that they speak of ?

[a7244270]

I looked at the diagram, and it looks very nice, but they seem to be very light on the details.

Supposedly, This new version has been successfully tested with Tomcat, JOnAS, MySQL and PostgreSQL. Excellent results have been obtained with the TPC-W and RUBiS benchmarks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, and I have been wanting something like this for years, but I sure would like to _see_ the test results, even if they are preliminary.

Re:This is a threat to the big vendors

[valisk]

People will always by oracle because "No one ever got fired for choosing Oracle". If something goes wrong, you always have someone to blame. With open source, your job is more on the line because you have to take responsability.

Prior to Oracle taking off in a big way people used to say:

People will always by IBM because "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM". If something goes wrong, you always have someone to blame. With the Seven Dwarfs (the common name for IBMs competitors back then), your job is more on the line because you have to take responsability.

Then Larry E. shamelessly put together a cool SQL database which copied every major innovation IBM had made and added in a few more for good measure. He also cut the price by a third, IBMs database customers deserted in droves, after all if this Oracle thing turned out to be shit, they could always get IBM to come clean up the mess. It turned out though, that Oracle wasn't and isn't shit.

That does not mean that Oracle is immortal and will always be top of the pile, Postgres now replicates almost all of the major features and is proven in the reliability stakes, tools like this are only going to make it more likely that corporate data departments will dip their toes into the Free software waters, after all if it turns out to be shit, they could always get Oracle to come clean up the mess.