On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:03 PM, roger peppe <roger.pe...@canonical.com> wrote:
> The latter might turn out to be quite awkward, though there's
> probably a nice solution I don't see.
>
> Suppose we've got three environments, A, B and C.
>
> We have transactions that span {A, B}, {B, C} and {C, A}.
>
> How can we choose a consistent shard key for all those
> transactions?What is a "consistent shard key" and why does it matter? >> Okay, so the measurements that left you unconvinced that sharding >> might help to scale up were not using sharding. > > If we struggle to meet the requirements for a single environment, > we're unlikely to meet them when we're running several environments > per shard, which is surely necessary if we're to scale up. That's unsound reasoning for the context. It implies that to be able to meet a load demand with many serving machines we must be able to meet the load demand with a single serving machine. Not true. > I hope it can work for us. > > I really do. I do as well. > I just worry that without actually doing some measurement in advance, > we may spend a lot of time working on this stuff and find that it was all for > nought because we're fundamentally bottlenecked somewhere > we didn't anticipate. By all means, please do measure and collect as much data as necessary to have a good design. We won't see any performance improvements without a reasonable understanding of how the system works and performs. gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
