So… it’s not durable? Durable doesn’t mean “survives a process restart”, it means “durably saved to persistent storage”. For example, this “durable” mode wouldn’t survive power loss.
Absolutely. If they just dirty some pages in memory and return back to the client the benchmarks will look "insanely fast".
I have nothing against this being a non-default option in a db/kv engine but anything advertising to be durable and not fsyncing by default is something I would stay away from. To me it's like a litmus test of how well the author knows/cares data durability and not destroying users data.
I give a little leeway to distributed systems that replicate and don't flush since there's a bit of middle ground assuming they're in different fault domains. Garage object storage defaults to that
However, this doesn't appear to be the case here...
Unsurprisingly, performance goes to crap when sync is enabled.
As of a couple years ago, mmap actually has a MAP_SYNC flag that makes it durable in the DB sense. The caveat is that it requires DAX on the file and so comes with a whole bunch of restrictions w.r.t. filesystem, storage media and even CPU architecture.
You're right, that mode provides process crash recovery, not power-loss durability. The benchmark compares it against fjall’s equivalent buffered-WAL mode.
Word choice matters. Defaults matter. People will go "well it says durable right here" and while arguably, yes, they should RTFM, it would still be great if tool-builders did not set the shotgun's default state to State::AT_FOOT. It would be nice if every paragraph of technical writing that I have to do need not be burdened by a thousand asterisks of "durable in this context means something other than durable".
Agreed. Good design is when the things do what you expect them to do without reading the manual, don't reuse wording with other meaning in the wrong way. That way if you do encounter nee wording, you know you should read the manual.
Indeed, a common enough pattern for etcd is to run it backed by a RAMdisk and have multi-az availability + periodic backups + tolerance at a business level to be OK losing some recent data.
Pretty much... paranoid() seems to be the real durable() which isn't a great look for a database project.
Being able to recover a db without corruption beyound losing the last few writes is a pretty useful feature, and buys a lot of performance, but it would be better to label that clearly, as a reasonable expectation on the durable() preset would be for it to be Durable.
The benchmark is setup to test 80 MiB dataset on a machine with 32 GiB RAM, which doesn't represent a typical database workload. How does the key-value store perform on larger than RAM datasets? MMAP is fast when the dataset fits in memory, but it can slow to a crawl when it doesn't, especially if the workload is mostly random point lookups.
Sure, but now if my rust application isn't using tokio I have to include it as a new dependency because the author of this lib decided to use it as his async runtime?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this split over async runtimes was what originally turned me off of rust years ago and it still seems to be an issue.
Because Tokio, while great for lots of things (ie default decent performance with ease of use), is a performance bottleneck if you want extremely high performance.
For example, the best this DB can do is ~3.7Mkeys/s for non durable writes and 162k/s for durable. I have an equivalent DB that’s always durable and does 30M/s* (for 8 byte entries) because it doesn’t use Tokio among other things. For this dataset it would be saturating the disk I/O no problem so I would expect it to be running ~7-14M/s depending on how fast your SSD is (~2-4x faster than non durable mode and 40-80x faster than its “durable”)
* it was running at 70-100mhz at one point but the challenge is keeping the hot path at ~10ns as you add features and other things.
You would only have to include it if the library uses `spawn`, as far as I am aware, or some tokio specific type, which is the same as any other library.
It's not pedantry, you're trying to find something in Rust that's simply not there. If this sort of thing turns you off on Rust you should be looking at a programming language with other priorities.
I’ve had the same reaction. We’ve seen this play out in other language eco-systems (Java - JAXP, javax.validation, JPA, etc all ended up with a de facto single implementation) and the idea of pluggable implementations sounds appealing but rarely pays off. The price that Rust paid for this abstraction - which in fact ended up not being useful as tokio is the only reasonable choice - was high in terms of requiring ugly (to my eyes) changes to its type system.
There is no price to pay on the type system that was imposed by tokio. I assume you're saying something like "I have to add 'static in generics" or something?
It has absolutely paid off, there are many people not using tokio.
It’s usually very difficult in a KV db to have an efficient operation that returns the item deleted. You’d need a transaction API to do it reliably. The challenge is concurrent writes are impossible to serialize against without transactions.
I assume this is for hashing. I've seen several hashing algorithms turn to hardware AES instructions before, but I haven't seen any evidence that this technique outperforms state-of-the-art hashes like RapidHash (https://github.com/Nicoshev/rapidhash) in either quality or speed.
For any complex system, there's never one single trick or design choice that makes it fast. It's always a large amount of engineering (or exaggerations, of course).
Those help but the main write speed gain is the WAL, that uses preallocated mmap segments to avoid a write(2) per durable mutation while preserving crash recovery.
AES hashing mainly helps Bloom filter point lookups and LZ4 mainly helps SSTable I/O. Scans benefit indirectly, but don’t yet use a custom SIMD merge loop.
While it’s important to make this explicit, at what point do we just assume a high-reliability UPS is table stakes?
Of course, if you need SIL2 type reliability then you need to assume any given hardware component can spontaneously combust and become a total loss, at which point the data loss caused by a power cut is a rounding error.
> While it’s important to make this explicit, at what point do we just assume a high-reliability UPS is table stakes?
Several years after they become commercially available?
My experience with small UPSes is they tend to cook the batteries and you don't find out until they switch the load and the battery doesn't hold up.
Large facility UPSes tend to do better, but automatic transfer switches have a tendancy to fail ocassionally. If you're hosted in many locations, it's not unusual to have a couple ATS failures per decade.
All that said, unexpected power loss is certainly one reason that writes may be lost, but OSes crash too. Disk firmware can also crash, but if thst bricks the disk, writes in progress don't really matter. Sometimes cabling fails. Or you get a uncorrectable ECC error (which will typically cause an OS panic... unless you're running a very fancy OS, but if it's in dirty disk backed page, even a fancy OS wouldn't save you)
Plenty of applications don't need or want to pay the cost for full commit to disk, but calling something durable when it's not committed to disk is inaccurate.
And that's before we get into the whole thing where the OS and the disk like to return success when things haven't quite finished.
Not sure how you managed to do it but you got it completely backwards.
If someone demands that the database should use fsync and only respond with success once the write finished, it is not some arbitrarily high reliability demand that needs to be implemented using reliable hardware. In fact, the entire point of implementing the power loss protection in software is so that you don't need perfectly reliable hardware. The power loss event turns into a downtime event which is often completely acceptable.
The requirement to have infallible hardware only emerged because the software refused to do its job. Infallible hardware is not a requirement decided by the user, it's a requirement decided by the developer of TurboKV to intentionally restrict his software to exclusively operate in a reliable hardware environment.
The fact that the user specified durability of the KV store during power loss does not make the user obsessed over hardware reliability, the software shifted the burden onto the hardware and forced the user to deal with this mess.
I don't know how exactly TurboKV works so let's talk about a hypothetical software instead.
Let's say the software cannot survive a power loss event and just corrupts the database. If the user wants to operate the software, he is forced by the software to operate it in an infallible environment where power loss can never occur. Based on how the software was designed, power loss is a catastrophic event. The SIL2 type reliability you're talking about only makes sense in contexts with catastrophic events.
So how it went is that the user made a reasonable demand with bounded reliability: "please survive power loss with durable writes" and the author says, sure just run the software on a SIL2 type reliability hardware environment.
It's not the user who blew up the hardware requirements.
> Appended to the WAL without a per-write sync
So… it’s not durable? Durable doesn’t mean “survives a process restart”, it means “durably saved to persistent storage”. For example, this “durable” mode wouldn’t survive power loss.
reply