Hacker News Reader

As can Cassandra. It depends on how much data is still in the page cache. I do agree both systems can be configured for immediate durability. However, we went with the default values as most people (and most databases) do not sync on every write. It is too much of a performance cost.

View on HN

> It is too much of a performance cost.

Its "MongoDB is web-scale" all over again.

Cassandra cannot lose more than 10s of data because it will slow down writes as necessary to make sure it does not. That's why comparing to a system that allows arbitrarily high data loss is unfair.

People can and do run Cassandra with full durability. When people understand the tradeoff between performance and data loss on power failure, you'd be surprised how often they'll chose real durability. (And by batching concurrent writes into the same fsync, the penalty isn't nearly as high as it would be in a naive implementation.)

Do you place a maximum amount of data in that 10s window? If not, it too is arbitrary. I do think batching concurrent writes is nice.

Of course "limit by time" and "limit by data" are interchangeable; in practice "limit by time" is easier for operators to reason about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com