NewSQL与传统的优化/分片 [英] NewSQL versus traditional optimization/sharding
问题描述
我们是一家小型创业公司，拥有大量的写入权重的SAAS应用程序，并且（最终）达到我们的用法呈现扩展问题的程度。我们有一个小团队，所以我们真的很感激能够卸载sysadmin到Heroku和RDS。
We're a small startup with a write-heavy SAAS app and are (finally!) getting to the point where our usage is presenting scaling issues. We have a small team, so we really appreciate being able to offload sysadmin to Heroku and RDS.
虽然Heroku（大部分）很好，我们有一个问题RDS ：
While Heroku is (mostly) fine, we have a couple problems with RDS:
- 缩放。这是最大的问题。我们当前运行一个XL RDS实例。我们将能够通过简单的优化获得一段时间，但除非我们对应用程序进行一些重大的结构性更改，否则我们将在某个时候遇到瓶颈。
此外，更改实例大小的停机时间很短。
Also, the downtime for changing instance size sucks.
-
可用性。我们运行多可用区实例，因此我们应该在单个AZ中断后生存。但RDS是建立在EBS上的，这让我非常担心EBS的历史和设计。
Availability. We run a multi-AZ instance, so we should survive a single AZ outage. But RDS is built on EBS, which makes me pretty worried given EBS's history and design.
价格。我们的RDS账单是我们支付Heroku的4倍。我不介意支付亚马逊，以拯救我从雇用系统管理员，但我很想找到更便宜的东西。
Price. Our RDS bill is 4x what we pay Heroku. I don't mind paying Amazon to save me from hiring a sysadmin, but I would love to find something less expensive.
在我看来，我们有两个选择：传统的方法部分我们的数据库只读，等等）;或NewSQL解决方案（Xeround，VoltDB，NimbusDB等）。
In my view, we have two options moving forward: the traditional approach (sharding, running a nightly job to move parts of our database to read-only, etc.); or a NewSQL solution (Xeround, VoltDB, NimbusDB, etc).
传统专业：以前做了很多次，有很多标准的方法。
Traditional pros: It's been done many times before and there are pretty standard ways to do it.
传统的缺点：这将需要大量的工作，并在应用程序中引入显着的复杂性。它也不会解决RDS的次要问题（可用性和价格）。
Traditional cons: It will take a lot of work and introduce significant complexity into the app. It also won't solve the secondary problems with RDS (availability and price).
NewSQL专业版：假设这些解决方案将水平扩展我们的数据库而不改变应用程序代码（受SQL功能的一些限制，如不使用悲观锁）。这将为我们节省大量的工作。它还将提高可靠性（无单点故障）并降低成本（无需在非工作时间运行XL实例，只需提供峰值使用）。
NewSQL pros: Supposedly, these solutions will horizontally scale our database without changing application code (subject to a few restrictions on SQL functionality like not using pessimistic locking). This would save us a huge amount of work. It would also improve reliability (no single point of failure) and reduce costs (not having to run an XL instance during off-hours just to provide for peak usage).
NewSQL的缺点：这些解决方案相对年轻，我还没有找到任何好的评论或者写出人们在生产应用中的体验。我只找到一个可用的托管解决方案（Xeround），所以除非我们去那个，我们必须投资资源在sysadmin。
NewSQL cons: These solutions are relatively young, and I haven't been able to find any good reviews or write-ups of people's experience with them in production apps. I've only found one available as a hosted solution (Xeround), so unless we went with that one, we'd have to invest resources in sysadmin.
我想知道我最好的选择是什么意见。
I'm wondering what opinions are as to what my best option would be.
Xeround非常诱人（托管的NewSQL），但是我在生产环境中找不到任何好的信息使用。我看到的几个tweets已经有人抱怨它有点慢。我很紧张，转向似乎没有经过测试的东西。
Xeround is awfully tempting (hosted NewSQL), but I haven't been able to find any good information use of it in production. The few tweets I've seen have been people complaining about it being a bit slow. I'm pretty nervous to move to something that seems so untested.
我保守的一面说，坚持使用RDS并使用传统的方法。但是在开发者时间方面真的很贵。
The conservative side of me says to stick with RDS and use a traditional approach. But it will be really expensive in terms of developer time.
然后，我的一部分想知道是否有另一种方式，也许一个更多的战斗测试托管的NewSQL解决方案，我没有听说过。或者也许是一个NewSQL解决方案，我们必须主持自己，但有一个真正的历史。
And then part of me wonders if there's another way, maybe a more battle-tested hosted NewSQL solution I haven't heard of. Or maybe a NewSQL solution we'd have to host ourselves but that has a really solid history.
先感谢您的想法。
推荐答案
不知道你是否听说过NuoDB。但它是一个全新的SQL解决方案，提供了NoSQL和SQL&传统OLTP的ACID兼容性。你应该看看解决方案。
Not sure if you heard about NuoDB yet. But it is a brand new SQL solution that offers the scale-out capabilities of NoSQL and the SQL & ACID compliance capabilities of traditional OLTP. You should take look at the solution.
这篇关于NewSQL与传统的优化/分片的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
