Comments on: Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/ A goal is a dream with a deadline. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:08:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ilya Grigorik http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-102623 Ilya Grigorik Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:46:36 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-102623 Matt, you're right, the raw put/get model can get rather expensive. However, don't forget that if you're running memcached, and if your queries are non-unique (which is almost always the case), then S3 will see only very few requests. Matt, you’re right, the raw put/get model can get rather expensive. However, don’t forget that if you’re running memcached, and if your queries are non-unique (which is almost always the case), then S3 will see only very few requests.

]]> By: matt http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-102591 matt Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:28:54 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-102591 Does anyone know how the billing works for individual requests between ec2 and s3? Over the Internet amazon charges $1/100k puts and $1/million gets. If this system does ~150 gets per second over a full hour, (150 requests x 3600 seconds) then you'd end up with 540k requests = $5.40/hour. That's significant if you thought you were running at $0.10/hour. Does anyone know if that's the case? I realize that there should be many cache hits and not full utilization etc..., but i'm just curious as to how they charge. Does anyone know how the billing works for individual requests between ec2 and s3? Over the Internet amazon charges $1/100k puts and $1/million gets.

If this system does ~150 gets per second over a full hour, (150 requests x 3600 seconds) then you’d end up with 540k requests = $5.40/hour.

That’s significant if you thought you were running at $0.10/hour.

Does anyone know if that’s the case? I realize that there should be many cache hits and not full utilization etc…, but i’m just curious as to how they charge.

]]> By: Ditto’s Blog » Blog Archive » 디토의 미투데이 - 2008년 1월 22일 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-101150 Ditto’s Blog » Blog Archive » 디토의 미투데이 - 2008년 1월 22일 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:33:55 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-101150 [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB: Document-oriented Database에 대한 관심이 생겨서 이것저것 찾아보는 중에 발견한 변태적인-_- 데이터베이스. (db) 2008-01-22 19:18:04 [...] [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB: Document-oriented Database에 대한 관심이 생겨서 이것저것 찾아보는 중에 발견한 변태적인-_- 데이터베이스. (db) 2008-01-22 19:18:04 [...]

]]> By: thrudb — award tour http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100926 thrudb — award tour Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:34:23 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100926 [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB. create a scalable distributed datastore with memcache and this disk+S3 storage solution. uses facebook’s thrift as well. tobi has a post on getting this setup on OSX. [...] [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB. create a scalable distributed datastore with memcache and this disk+S3 storage solution. uses facebook’s thrift as well. tobi has a post on getting this setup on OSX. [...]

]]> By: Adam http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100888 Adam Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:07:08 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100888 Kudos for this article. Thanks a lot! <strong>Adam @ <a href="http://www.talkphp.com/" rel="nofollow">TalkPHP.com - PHP Community</a></strong> Kudos for this article. Thanks a lot!

Adam @ TalkPHP.com - PHP Community

]]> By: THIRD RAIL » Blog Archive » Thrudb: Not just me anymore http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100871 THIRD RAIL » Blog Archive » Thrudb: Not just me anymore Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:11:22 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100871 [...] Thrudb has gotten a lot of attention recently (thanks Ilya). [...] [...] Thrudb has gotten a lot of attention recently (thanks Ilya). [...]

]]> By: frederico http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100808 frederico Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:38:44 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100808 Thanks a lot Ilya... I'm trying it on OSX and Gentoo linux... Thanks a lot Ilya…
I’m trying it on OSX and Gentoo linux…

]]> By: Ilya Grigorik http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100806 Ilya Grigorik Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:35:25 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100806 Frederico, the AMI configuration was a painful process, hence the reason why we released the pre-configured image. Unfortunately we didn't do a step-by-step documentation either. Having said that, take a look at this article by <a href="http://blog.leetsoft.com/2007/12/31/compiling-thrudb-on-osx" rel="nofollow">Tobias Lutke</a>, it should give you a great head start. Frederico, the AMI configuration was a painful process, hence the reason why we released the pre-configured image. Unfortunately we didn’t do a step-by-step documentation either. Having said that, take a look at this article by Tobias Lutke, it should give you a great head start.

]]> By: Ilya Grigorik http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100778 Ilya Grigorik Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:47:30 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100778 Jean, it all depends on your application. In general, yes, it should be much, much faster. Having said that, for many applications, attachment_fu + S3 is all you will ever need. Jean, it all depends on your application. In general, yes, it should be much, much faster. Having said that, for many applications, attachment_fu + S3 is all you will ever need.

]]> By: links for 2007-12-30 « Bloggitation http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100773 links for 2007-12-30 « Bloggitation Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:18:34 +0000 http://www.igvita.com/2007/12/28/thrudb-faster-and-cheaper-than-simpledb/#comment-100773 [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB Thrudoc. Developed by Jake Luciani as part of his ThruDB platform which currently powers JunkDepot, it is a highly scalable document-oriented database ideal for deployment on virtual (Amazon EC2+S3) or dedicated infrastructure (tags: database cluster 247up amazon s3) [...] [...] Thrudb - faster, cheaper than SimpleDB Thrudoc. Developed by Jake Luciani as part of his ThruDB platform which currently powers JunkDepot, it is a highly scalable document-oriented database ideal for deployment on virtual (Amazon EC2+S3) or dedicated infrastructure (tags: database cluster 247up amazon s3) [...]

]]>