[HN Gopher] A distributed locking library built on top of Cloud ...
___________________________________________________________________
A distributed locking library built on top of Cloud Spanner and
TrueTime
Author : ithkuil
Score : 27 points
Date : 2021-10-06 21:26 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| zie wrote:
| Arguably most of BTC's energy usage is spent trying to lock
| transactions in a safe, distributed manner. How long until we get
| SpindleCoin? :P
| kyrra wrote:
| Googler opinions are my own. I'm not a spanner expert, but I use
| F1 at least a little.
|
| If you start having global spanner replicas, don't you start
| getting into read safe times? According to the GCP docs, a given
| node may not know if it has the latest data, as global replicas
| could diverge by up to 10 seconds ( assuming I'm reading the docs
| right).
|
| I am little sad that Google never made chubby a service on GCP.
| That is underlying locking system that many systems that Google
| use.
|
| Chubby: https://research.google/pubs/pub27897/
|
| Spanner read write docs:
| https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/whitepapers/life-of-re...
| leajkinUnk wrote:
| From what I remember, Chubby was one of those services that was
| a bit more sensitive to poor client behavior. You could cause
| problems for other users with poor Chubby behavior, and you
| could accidentally end up with code that causes a high Chubby
| load.
| gravypod wrote:
| (Opinions are my own)
|
| Chubby is a lot like etcd except without the hindsight.
| Distributed locking is pretty complicated and if I remember
| correctly there was a great podcast from Google's Kube
| podcast about distributed locking that goes into a lot of
| this. [0]
|
| If you are going to do any distributed locking I strongly
| recommend listening to it. Has a lot of pain points
| discussed.
|
| [0] - https://kubernetespodcast.com/episode/123-leader-
| election/
| lokar wrote:
| Chubby depends on clients using a complex library for full
| correctness.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > I am little sad that Google never made chubby a service on
| GCP. That is underlying locking system that many systems that
| Google use.
|
| I think one of the issues with this is that its far easier to
| use chubby incorrectly than to use it correctly. Like, you can
| use chubby to build really, really cool and powerful tools (htt
| ps://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi16/osdi16...),
| but I wouldn't be surprised if most _users_ misused or overused
| it, and that would likely be magnified on a public version.
| nn3 wrote:
| On the one hand it looks interesting.
|
| On the other hand Spanner must have a perfectly fine distributed
| lock manager on its own. It seems odd to implement a lock manager
| on another lock manager (which just happens to be a database too)
| just because you can't directly access it. I'm sure that must
| cause unnecessary overhead.
|
| It's a bit like those odd nesting cases that happen in
| networking, like PPPoE over Ethernet. Maybe that's the eventual
| fate of computing as it evolves, more and more layers everywhere,
| that are more and more redundant but still exist for some odd
| reason, with low level facilities being reinvented.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-08 23:01 UTC)