Comment Re:We choose to go to the moon... (Score -1, Troll) 197
Ukraine? Ahhh, you mean the western initiated coup that put a bunch of ultra right-wing Nazis into power?
I love the wailing that RDBMS fanboys make when anyone mentions NoSQL. Most of it is downright wrong, but the sound is nice.
I also love the uncomfortable bum shuffling that NoSQL fanboys do when they have to tell people they've lost data and all those corner cases they said were unlikely to happen.....well, they kind of have happened. It's also amusing to see people labelled as 'RDBMS fanboys' considering that relational database systems have worked very well for decades.
Sure you can. You can do that and get useful gains. Your imagination may be too limited to understand it, but it's perfectly possible out here in the real world.
Yes, you can get gains. Just don't expect your data to be there in the event of a failure, which is exactly what a system to handle data is supposed to prevent. You generally also get the "That data isn't critical" and a whole list of exceptions from these twats as to how it's all acceptable, but if it's one thing I've learned it's that the risk of data loss is only a problem once it happens and then you get a request for "We'd like a report on all X historical data for Y occurrences". Queue uncomfortable bum shuffling. That's before I've even got to the ludicrous twilight zone consistency problems that can arise.
It's a distributed database. They don't need the data to be consistent across every node on every write; "eventually consistent" is fine provided that they know the write has reached at least n+1 nodes, and modern NoSQL databases can do just that.
Ahhhh, yes, here we go. The corner cases that cannot happen. I could turn off fsync and do a great deal of things with relational database systems that would easily equal or surpass any write performance that a NoSQL system has. You know why I don't do that? Because it's fucking stupid, that's why.
I also love the implicit suggestion that performing an effective query on any large normalised relational dataset is easy, by the way.
Let me see. A language and data structure built for constructing queries, with an established process of refining data through normal forms, or a free-for-all using JavaScript or whatever other language a web developer monkey who is now apparently a database developer pulls out of his arse. Tough choice.
Look, we get it: you've invested a lot of time and effort into becoming an Oracle developer
Where did he say he was an Oracle developer?
...and yes your skills are now under attack by something that's totally foreign to you, but perhaps you could try learning about those new things and extending your knowledge base instead of dismissing them an hoping they'll go away.
Alas, SQL skills are not under attack at all no matter how you'd desperately like to believe in your own fantasy world that they are. The reason why those experienced amongst us get animated about this NoSQL diarrhoea is because companies and organisations get burned by it. Badly. It's a concept put together by a bunch of utterly ignorant and moronic web developers who believe they are now database developers, can throw away the lessons learned over the past several decades about how data is treated and can throw away that computer science learning they were too stupid to pick up.
It'll make you more employable and you'll look like less of a petulant child, all at the same time.
I've just ruptured my spleen. Thanks.
Again we could get infinite scalability with Cassandra for free.
Jesus Christ......
In general, because of communication delays, the banking system depends not on consistency for correctness, but rather on auditing and compensation. Another example of this is "check kiting," in which a customer withdraws money from multiple branches before they can communicate and then flees. The overdraft will be caught later, perhaps leading to compensation in the form of legal action.
You can claim Eric Brewer is a fucking idiot as much as you want. Eventually all you will do is destroy your own credibility.
You're misunderstanding what's been written in that article. This is exactly the scenario that banks *have* to prevent before and as it happens. Chasing around for compensation later cannot be an option in many cases because it is going to be abused. It could happen in the case that a bank branch loses connectivity and they have to work manually, but this is a very rare exception and not the rule, and in that scenario many bank branches simply won't process certain types of transactions. Whatever system you use locally will be checked live, usually with a mainframe based system that is ACID compliant. If that isn't possible then you have a gradual system degradation where only certain types of transactions are processed. Simply relying on an audit trail to piece things together is the exception you don't want rather than how things work, but of course, you'd better hope that audit trail is consistent
I know because I've been there in a bank and these corner cases are what you have to account for and deal with. This attitude is what made the Mt Gox Bitcoin exchange a laughing stock, amongst others. The article is not a carte blanche to justify NoSQL systems or to do away with any core systems that compromise ACID at their heart. Indeed, that's what they have to fall back to.
The opposite of ACIDis BASE where the "E" stands for eventual consistency. The beauty of this is that it DOES NOT lose completed transactions and at the same time it allows for high availability.
I'm awaiting the rest of the comment with a mixture of trepidation and mild amusement......
In many industries, including banking, eventual consistency plus high availability (NoSQL) is preferable to strict consistency plus lower availability (RDBMS). Of course there are many other factors involved in selecting a database architecture.
No. Creating corner cases like this is what all the NoSQL nutters do, and certainly what they've had to do in recent years when it's become painfully apparent that if you start mucking about with data consistency in any way and telling people things don't matter you WILL get burned.
Acquainting a traditional RDBMS with a phrase like 'lower availability' just highlights to kind of twilight zone you start getting into when talking to any of the NoSQL crowd.
It is true that "show balance" does not strictly commute with deposits and withdrawals but: a) this does not cause the system to lose track of your money, and b) no one expects it to strictly commute.
You didn't work on Mt Gox's systems at any point did you?
Forget what nonsense other people spout about systemd (like that is is a binary, proprietary xml blob made by the NSA/The Greys/Cthulu) and start learning about it in a proper way.
I'm afraid you're just trying to cloud the systemd nonsense with nonsense of your own, which is a classic tactic of the passive aggressive way in which the systemd crew deal with things.
Or maybe having to run ejabberd as root, because it simply wants to bind to a 1024 port?
Are you really that fucking retarded?
You don't have to use journald - that is the point. Or at least you can set it to non-persistant storage so it doesn't exist outside of
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. They are an integrated whole. You can't just swap out for syslog otherwise you'll face a heck of a lot of corner cases.
The newspaper reports that about 80% of all Munich city workers use LiMux at the office, and that, according to Schmid, many of those workers are “suffering.”
So after well over ten years they've now just discovered that users are suffering? Microsoft are moving their headquarters to Munich? Pull the other one.
No, that's not it at all. The Zionist enterprise was about creating a Jewish state, but that term does not mean what you think it means. It is not about creating a state only for Jewish (religion) people, but about creating a national home for the Jewish people. That phrasing is actually the subtitle of the Zionist charter.
Which means Israel is not, and was never meant to be, a Jews only state. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide references.
That's possibly one of the most creative descriptions of the Israeli state I have ever read, but then Israel and Jewish people
The reason I would not agree to an indiscriminate return is not because I don't like to see Arabs around (I wouldn't buy a home where I did were that the case). It's because that would turn Israel into an Arab state (i.e. - it would replace one nation's state with another).
The fact that you're talking in those terms of an 'Arab' and an 'Israeli' state betrays what you and the rest of us know to be true.
Genocide? Really?
Yes really. Bombing the shit out of schools, repeatedly, to the point where it looks less like collateral damage and more like systematic targetting of civilians and children and ethnic cleansing is not acceptable.
What's ironic is Jewish people should be acutely more aware of this than most.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
