| ▲ | CubsFan1060 4 days ago |
| I feel dumb for asking this, but can someone explain why this is such a big deal? I’m not quite sure I am grokking it yet. |
|
| ▲ | lxgr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If my memory of parallel algorithms class serves me right, you can build any synchronization algorithm on top of compare-and-swap as an atomic primitive. As a (horribly inefficient, in case of non-trivial write contention) toy example, you could use S3 as a lock-free concurrent SQLite storage backend: Reads work as expected by fetching the entire database and satisfying the operation locally; writes work like this: - Download the current database copy - Perform your write locally - Upload it back using "Put-If-Match" and the pre-edit copy as the matched object. - If you get success, consider the transaction successful. - If you get failure, go back to step 1 and try again. |
|
| ▲ | CobrastanJorji 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is often very important to know, when you write an object, what the previous state was. Say you sold plushies and you had 100 plushies in a warehouse. You create a file "remainingPlushies.txt" that stores "100". If somebody buys a plushie, you read the file, and if it's bigger than 0, you subtract 1, write the new version of the file, and okay the sale. Without conditional writes, two instances of your application might both read "100", both subtract 1, and both write "99". If they checked the file afterward, both would think everything was fine. But things aren't find because you've actually sold two. The other cloud storage providers have had these sorts of conditional write features since basically forever, and it's always been really weird that S3 has lacked them. |
|
| ▲ | Sirupsen 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The short of it is that building a database on top of object storage has generally required a complicated, distributed system for consensus/metadata. CAS makes it possible to build these big data systems without any other dependencies. This is a win for simplicity and reliability. |
| |
| ▲ | CubsFan1060 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks! Do they mention when the comparison is done? Is it before, after, or during an upload? (For instance, if I have a 4tb file in a multi part upload, would I only know it would fail as soon as the whole file is uploaded?) | | |
| ▲ | timmg 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | (I assume) it will fail if the eTag doesn't match -- the instance it got the header. The main point of it is: I have an object that I want to mutate. I think I have the latest version in memory. So I update in memory and upload it to S3 with the eTag of the version I have and tell it to only commit if that is the latest version. If it "fails", I re-download the object, re-apply the mutation, and try again. | |
| ▲ | poincaredisk 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I imagine, for it to make sense, that the comparison is done at the last possible moment, before atomically swapping the file contents. | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Practically, they could do both: Do an early reject of a given POST in case the ETag does not match, but re-validate this just before swapping out the objects (and committing to considering the given request as the successful one globally). That said, I'm not sure if common HTTP libraries look at response headers before they're done posting a response body, or if that's even allowed/possible in HTTP? It seems feasible at a first glance with chunked encoding, at least. Edit: Upon looking a bit, it seems that informational response codes, e.g. 100 (Continue) in combination with Expect 100-continue in the requests, could enable just that and avoid an extra GET with If-Match. | |
| ▲ | Nevermark 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can imagine it might be useful to make this a choice for databases with high frequency small swaps and occasional large ones. 1) default, load-compare-&-swap for small fast load/swaps. 2) optional, compare-load-&-swap to allow a large load to pass its compare, and cut in front of all the fast small swap that would otherwise create an un-hittable moving target during its long loads for its own compare. 3) If the load itself was stable relative to the compare, then it could be pre-loaded and swapped into a holding location, followed by as many fast compare-&-swaps as needed to get it into the right location. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jayd16 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When you upload a change you can know you're not clobbering changes you never saw. |
| |
| ▲ | ramraj07 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Brilliant single line that is better than every other description above. Kudos. | |
| ▲ | papichulo2023 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think is called write after write (WAW) if I remember correctly. |
|
|
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
