Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Maksim Timonin

Saved on

compared with

New Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Maksim Timonin

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Consistent Cut
    + Simple algorithm - requires only some read-write locks to sync threads, and doesn't affect performance much.
    + Doesn't require to much additional space - it just writing few additional messages to WAL.
    - Requires time to recovery (applying every message from WAL to system) that depends on how many operations need to be restored.
    - Requires additional storage to persist WAL archives.
    - Doesn't restore ATOMIC caches.
  2. Incremental physical snapshots (collection of partition binary files changed since previous snapshot, can be implemented as delta or as full copy).
    - High disk IO usage for preparing snapshots.
    - Current implementation of snapshots requires PME, that affects performance much.
    + Fast recovering, doesn't depend on amount operations to restore (WAL-free).
  3. MVCC
    - Ignite failed to support MVCC, very hard to implement.

...