+1 agree. On Jul 3, 2017 7:21 PM, "Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri" <jujj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everything said on this thread is important and accurate. The description > on the website must be a story rather than a blurb. > We should talk about BK's strengths as Enrico pointed out, and because of > its versatility it became fundamental building block > for various other technologies and usecases. IMO, the entire story is very > powerful and appealing for BK. > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 2017-07-03 7:00 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > It has been almost 6-7 years since Apache BookKeeper was born. Apache > > > > BookKeeper has already grown beyond a WAL system. Both Twitter and > > Yahoo > > > > have used it as their storage foundation for their messaging systems, > > > > Salesforce is using it for storage service. We also started talking > > > Apache > > > > BookKeeper as a storage service since 2016 ([1][2]). > > > > > > > > I am thinking of changing the description of Apache BookKeeper from a > > WAL > > > > system to "a High Performance and Low Latency Storage Service (that > > > > optimized for immutable/append-only data)" in the new website that we > > are > > > > building for BP-11 > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > action?pageId=71012301>. > > > > This will help us to bring more use cases/adoptions to the project > and > > > help > > > > grow the community. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > My two cents > > > > > > Honestly when I found BookKeeper I was very happy because I found an > > > "original" building block to build replicated state machines. > > > I think that the main soul of BK is exactly to be a WAL and this is > > > really "original". > > > > > > From my point of view the "key features" of BookKeeper are "Fencing" > > > and "Last-Add-Confirmed protocol" > > > > > > BookKeeper is really good at storing data, but IMHO it is because it > > > has been designed and implemented by very skilled engineers, > > > BookKeeper needs to be "fast", because in order to provide a fast WAL > > > you have to give an ultra-fast storage, because the essence of a WAL > > > is "durability" and usually "durable" comes together with 'sync' and > > > so with 'slow' . > > > > > > I am not a "marketing expert" but IMHO we should stress on the > > > distinctive features of BK in respect to other softwares. > > > > > > I am not against the proposed change but as an user I wanted to point > > > that I happy with BK because it is the most powerful distributed WAL > > > (and maybe it is the unique in the opensource/free world) > > > > > > I would like to write in the website that BookKeeper is the real > > > answer to whom who are looking for a distributed WAL. > > > > > > Agree, we should make a clear case for distributed WAL. > > > > It is worth just putting down all the use cases that BookKeeper has > > supported. > > > > - WAL (e.g. HDFS NameNode) > > - Message Store (e.g. Apache Pulsar, Twitter Pub/Sub via DistributedLog) > > - Offset/Cursor Store (e.g. Apache Pulsar stores cursors in ledgers) > > - Object/Blob Store (e.g. in replicated state machine, storing state > > machine snapshots in ledgers. We used this pattern at distributedlog > based > > replicated state machines.) > > - ... > > > > They are not all typical WAL use cases. But the common thing on all these > > use cases - they are using bookkeeper as an append-only/immutable store. > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://www.slideshare.net/hustlmsp/apache-bookkeeper-a- > > > high-performance-and-low-latency-storage-service > > > > [2] https://www.slideshare.net/jujjuri/apache-con2016final > > > > > > > > > -- > Jvrao > --- > First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then > you win. - Mahatma Gandhi >
