Comments for Jim Downey

Comment on Exploring NoSQL: Memcached by doctor

doctor — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:15:25 +0000

cloudbyuchit.blogspot.com

Comment on Chatter, SharePoint, and Collaboration by marcrdavis

marcrdavis — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:30:41 +0000

Jim – we’ve had similar experiences at my company – Each platform has it’s positives and negatives. My gripe is that SharePoint 2010 did not come with a native microblogging feature or wall functionality. It’s close – but not enough. We started with Yammer, now on Chatter and we are now closely integrating the two environments – take a look at some my posts on SharePoint/Chatter here: http://marcrdavis.wordpress.com/

Comment on Eventual Consistency: How Eventual? How Consistent? by Dave

Dave — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:57:49 +0000

Regarding “How long might eventual take?” I can only recommend my 2011 paper on that topic: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2093186

Comment on Eventual Consistency: How Eventual? How Consistent? by James Downey

James Downey — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:23:40 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve just written a follow up post explaining my mistake. See http://jimdowney.net/2012/03/05/be-careful-with-sloppy-quorums/.

Comment on Eventual Consistency: How Eventual? How Consistent? by Windows Azure and Cloud Computing Posts for 2/24/2012+ - Windows Azure Blog

Windows Azure and Cloud Computing Posts for 2/24/2012+ - Windows Azure Blog — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:10:31 +0000

[...] Downey (@james_downey) asked Eventual Consistency: How Eventual? How Consistent? in a 3/2/2012 [...]

Comment on Eventual Consistency: How Eventual? How Consistent? by senderista

senderista — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:59:33 +0000

Even if R+W>N, sloppy quorum ala Dynamo means that consistency is not guaranteed.

Comment on NoSQL: The Joy is in the Details by NoSQL: The Joy is in the Details « Another Word For It

NoSQL: The Joy is in the Details « Another Word For It — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:28:39 +0000

[...] NoSQL: The Joy is in the Details by James Downey. [...]

Comment on Exploring NoSQL: MongoDB by James Downey

James Downey — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:38:03 +0000

By the way, I blog as a way to learn. I research and try out new technologies and use the blog to put my thoughts together. And I hope that somebody in the community will point out where I’m wrong, precisely as you have done. Thanks.

Comment on Exploring NoSQL: MongoDB by James Downey

James Downey — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:35:51 +0000

Thanks again for the thoughtful comment. Yes, I went too far in simplifying the way replication works. I’ll try to revise within a few days.

Comment on Exploring NoSQL: MongoDB by Brian Adler

Brian Adler — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:04:50 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts on your experiences with MongoDB. As you mention, MongoDB is of particular appeal to folks familiar with JavaScript, but we actually see it used almost exclusively in PHP implementations (granted, this is most likely due to PHP’s dominant market presence). The question I did want to pose was in regard to your comment that “Each shard in a MongoDB cluster could be configured to replicate to one or more slave instances…”. I assume you are using “slave” as a general term in that what we are seeing (almost exclusively) is the use of three-node replica sets (per shard), as the MongoDB community has gone away from the master/slave configuration in favor of the replica set implementation. While some customers run two nodes and an arbiter, the recommendation we make is to use all three nodes as data nodes – you have three servers running, and storage is typically cheap, so it makes sense to populate data on all the “voters” so any of them can take the role as the primary node.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the other members of the NoSQL club…