Re: Come check out the best NoSQL database available today - Globals - It's FREE!
145 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Ronnie Redd
May 9, 2011, 4:26:20 PM5/9/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
Is it open source?
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:45 PM, MichaelSD <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's blazingly fast, and extremely flexible, with outrageous
> scalability. It's been a proven technology for over 30 years, with
> the same storage engine that lies at the core of tens of thousands of
> existing applications, deployed at hundreds of thousands of sites, and
> used by millions of users, every single day (most 24x7). The API to
> the database is so simple to use, that a savvy developer can write new
> code, or adapt existing code, to store and retrieve data, in less than
> an hour. If the aforementioned list of superlatives isn't enough to
> get you to check out this amazing NoSQL database, then perhaps,
> knowing that it's now being offered completely FREE to everyone, will
> get you to click on the following link, so you too can see why this
> should be your database of choice:
>
> http://GlobalsDB.org/
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOSQL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nosql-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nosql-discussion?hl=en.
>
>
--
"You can fool some of the people all of the time ... and those are the
ones you should concentrate on."
Microsoft Sales Slogan
Matt Hoffman
May 10, 2011, 12:34:44 PM5/10/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
Obviously, a lot of superlatives there...so much so that I wrote this off as a joke originally.
But it looks like Globals is a real product, so perhaps you want to expand a bit?
Like:
I'm not trying to be combative -- I hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm just trying to give you the opportunity to hype your product in a little more detail.
To preempt a couple common arguments that cause me, personally, to glaze over and move to the next thread (not that you would use these specifically...they just happen a lot in these kinds of threads):
- "Just download the product and try it out for yourself" is _not_ a valid argument -- there are over 100 "NoSQL" databases listed on nosql-database.org, and more on Wikipedia. Busy developers are looking for reasons why they should invest their free time in one over any other.
- "Comparing this to [other product] is apples and oranges" is also not an argument. People say this all the time, but all it actually communicates is, "these products are different." But of course they're different. That's why we're comparing them. If they were identical, there'd be no point. To keep with the metaphor, consider the question to be "when would I want this fruit, and not a different one?" and go from there.
matt
But it looks like Globals is a real product, so perhaps you want to expand a bit?
Like:
- Since your subject line is "the best NoSQL database available today"...can you compare it to any other NoSQL database? At least a comparison to Gt.M may be helpful, since it's also built on MUMPS and hierarchical, but open source (aGPL). I'd be interested in your take on pros and cons vs. other leading schemaless, BigTable-based or key-value databases as well.
- You said "outrageous scalability" -- scalable how? I see nothing on the website about how it scales. Does it partition across nodes by index? If so, which index? The first? How does it handle consistency between nodes? C, A, or P? For that matter, it sounds like there's no configuration (it's always deployed to the default location?) so how do you configure the ports that different nodes communicate on?
- I'm assuming that it does actually cluster multiple nodes, since you mentioned scalability ... but now that I'm looking at the website, I don't see any mention of clustering. I can't fathom what you'd mean by "outrageous scalability" if, in fact, it doesn't scale beyond one machine. For that matter, is it limited by available memory on one node, or does it overflow to disk? Does it always persist to disk? What's the performance hit in that overflow to disk?
- Globals is obviously being made free to drive users to your commercial products -- Caché, specifically, from what I can tell. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as a strategy. But do you think that a customer could go live with just Globals? From browsing the website, I see in some comments that it doesn't support hot backup and restore, and doesn't offer tools for operational use, and is designed as a "very simple" persistence framework for Java. As such, one could argue that it's somewhat feature-poor compared to other databases. Do you really envision products going live on Globals, or do you envision it as "Caché developer edition"?
- For background: is Globals written in M / MUMPS? Is there any plan to open source the code itself?
I'm not trying to be combative -- I hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm just trying to give you the opportunity to hype your product in a little more detail.
To preempt a couple common arguments that cause me, personally, to glaze over and move to the next thread (not that you would use these specifically...they just happen a lot in these kinds of threads):
- "Just download the product and try it out for yourself" is _not_ a valid argument -- there are over 100 "NoSQL" databases listed on nosql-database.org, and more on Wikipedia. Busy developers are looking for reasons why they should invest their free time in one over any other.
- "Comparing this to [other product] is apples and oranges" is also not an argument. People say this all the time, but all it actually communicates is, "these products are different." But of course they're different. That's why we're comparing them. If they were identical, there'd be no point. To keep with the metaphor, consider the question to be "when would I want this fruit, and not a different one?" and go from there.
matt
seth/nqzero
May 10, 2011, 1:14:34 PM5/10/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
excellent post matt hoffman - i'm working on a (different) product and your analysis is a blueprint for how i need to think about my own product. in particular your "pre-emptions" - those force you to really think about and articulate what the use case is
rtweed
May 12, 2011, 6:40:49 AM5/12/11
to NOSQL
Without wishing to pre-empt any official response from InterSystems to
your very pertinent questions, perhaps I can offer a few independent
observations and responses. I'm not an InterSystems person - simply a
long-term user and advocate of Global-storage based technologies of
which GT.M, Cache and now GlobalsDB are members, and someone who has
long believed that it's a significantly under-valued database
technology, and unfortunately and sadly not known about or understood
sufficiently in the wider database/IT world. However, the rise of
NoSQL has provided some renewed chance of rediscovery by a wider
community of developers, which I'm keen to encourage.
With respect to a comparison with BigTable etc, I guess all of us in
the Global-storage technology user communities have looked at many of
the new NoSQL technologies and thought it's deja vu all over
again :-) Perhaps this paper that I co-authored might help to at
least provide a comparative positioning against the "mainstream" NoSQL
databases (apologies if you've already read it):
http://www.mgateway.com/docs/universalNoSQL.pdf
As we note in the paper, full-blown Cache and GT.M provide many of the
mechanisms needed for high-end scalability, though, as you point out,
many of these appear to be lacking in GlobalsDB, at least in its
current (and relatively early) incarnation.
Regarding a comparison of GlobalsDB and GT.M, at the core data storage
level, there's little difference: they both use Globals for data
storage, so the use cases will be similar. As you note, whilst
GlobalsDB is free but proprietary, GT.M is free open source. I guess
the biggest differences are:
- GlobalsDB is essentially the core database engine from Cache, but
with many of the features of Cache, in particular its native language
(M) turned off. The concept in GlobalsDB is that it will be accessed
via APIs from other mainstream languages, instead of being primarily
accessed via the M language as is the norm in, say, GT.M
- the GlobalsDB APIs are in-process rather than via, say, a TCP
interface. As such it should be significantly faster to access from a
non-M scripting language such as Java or Javascript/Node.js than would
be GT.M. I've not tried it out yet myself, as I'm very much a
Javascript person these days and keen to try out their planned Node.js
APIs. I should be able to report back some performance comparisons
when I get my hands on the Node.js-compatible version.
I suspect one way things will pan out over coming months will be:
- if you want a fully open source Global-based database technology
with all the bells and whistles, then GT.M is probably the answer, but
its interfacing to other languages will be bottlenecked by TCP
networking limits and indirection (the M equivalent of, eg
Javascript's eval() function)
- If you want the ultimate in performance and willing to sacrifice
open source and the high-end scalability options, but remain free,
then GlobalsDB will be a good choice
- If you want the former but are willing to pay for the extra high-end
scalability technologies, then full-blown Cache will be your choice.
The nice thing is that it will be straightforward to engineer
applications that can be easily migrated between these three options
with a minimum of change being needed at the application level.
Regarding your question "is GlobalsDB written in M/ Mumps?" The answer
is no - I believe it's all C code internally - as is GT.M.
Anyway, I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions,
at least in terms of my perspective on things. Personally, I think
GlobalsDB is a great thing and nice to see InterSystems venturing into
a new direction: I think that's only to be encouraged and can only
help the NoSQL community. I can't wait to try it out once that
Node.js interface is ready :-)
Rob
On May 10, 5:34 pm, Matt Hoffman <ninethi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously, a lot of superlatives there...so much so that I wrote this off as
> a joke originally.
>
> But it looks like Globals is a real product, so perhaps you want to expand a
> bit?
>
> Like:
>
> - Since your subject line is "the best NoSQL database available
your very pertinent questions, perhaps I can offer a few independent
observations and responses. I'm not an InterSystems person - simply a
long-term user and advocate of Global-storage based technologies of
which GT.M, Cache and now GlobalsDB are members, and someone who has
long believed that it's a significantly under-valued database
technology, and unfortunately and sadly not known about or understood
sufficiently in the wider database/IT world. However, the rise of
NoSQL has provided some renewed chance of rediscovery by a wider
community of developers, which I'm keen to encourage.
With respect to a comparison with BigTable etc, I guess all of us in
the Global-storage technology user communities have looked at many of
the new NoSQL technologies and thought it's deja vu all over
again :-) Perhaps this paper that I co-authored might help to at
least provide a comparative positioning against the "mainstream" NoSQL
databases (apologies if you've already read it):
http://www.mgateway.com/docs/universalNoSQL.pdf
As we note in the paper, full-blown Cache and GT.M provide many of the
mechanisms needed for high-end scalability, though, as you point out,
many of these appear to be lacking in GlobalsDB, at least in its
current (and relatively early) incarnation.
Regarding a comparison of GlobalsDB and GT.M, at the core data storage
level, there's little difference: they both use Globals for data
storage, so the use cases will be similar. As you note, whilst
GlobalsDB is free but proprietary, GT.M is free open source. I guess
the biggest differences are:
- GlobalsDB is essentially the core database engine from Cache, but
with many of the features of Cache, in particular its native language
(M) turned off. The concept in GlobalsDB is that it will be accessed
via APIs from other mainstream languages, instead of being primarily
accessed via the M language as is the norm in, say, GT.M
- the GlobalsDB APIs are in-process rather than via, say, a TCP
interface. As such it should be significantly faster to access from a
non-M scripting language such as Java or Javascript/Node.js than would
be GT.M. I've not tried it out yet myself, as I'm very much a
Javascript person these days and keen to try out their planned Node.js
APIs. I should be able to report back some performance comparisons
when I get my hands on the Node.js-compatible version.
I suspect one way things will pan out over coming months will be:
- if you want a fully open source Global-based database technology
with all the bells and whistles, then GT.M is probably the answer, but
its interfacing to other languages will be bottlenecked by TCP
networking limits and indirection (the M equivalent of, eg
Javascript's eval() function)
- If you want the ultimate in performance and willing to sacrifice
open source and the high-end scalability options, but remain free,
then GlobalsDB will be a good choice
- If you want the former but are willing to pay for the extra high-end
scalability technologies, then full-blown Cache will be your choice.
The nice thing is that it will be straightforward to engineer
applications that can be easily migrated between these three options
with a minimum of change being needed at the application level.
Regarding your question "is GlobalsDB written in M/ Mumps?" The answer
is no - I believe it's all C code internally - as is GT.M.
Anyway, I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions,
at least in terms of my perspective on things. Personally, I think
GlobalsDB is a great thing and nice to see InterSystems venturing into
a new direction: I think that's only to be encouraged and can only
help the NoSQL community. I can't wait to try it out once that
Node.js interface is ready :-)
Rob
On May 10, 5:34 pm, Matt Hoffman <ninethi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously, a lot of superlatives there...so much so that I wrote this off as
> a joke originally.
>
> But it looks like Globals is a real product, so perhaps you want to expand a
> bit?
>
> Like:
>
> today"...can you compare it to any other NoSQL database? At least a
> comparison to Gt.M may be helpful, since it's also built on MUMPS and
> hierarchical, but open source (aGPL). I'd be interested in your take on
> pros and cons vs. other leading schemaless, BigTable-based or key-value
> databases as well.
> - You said "outrageous scalability" -- scalable how? I see nothing on
> comparison to Gt.M may be helpful, since it's also built on MUMPS and
> hierarchical, but open source (aGPL). I'd be interested in your take on
> pros and cons vs. other leading schemaless, BigTable-based or key-value
> databases as well.
> the website about how it scales. Does it partition across nodes by index?
> If so, which index? The first? How does it handle consistency between
> nodes? C, A, or P? For that matter, it sounds like there's no
> configuration (it's always deployed to the default location?) so how do you
> configure the ports that different nodes communicate on?
> - I'm assuming that it does actually cluster multiple nodes, since you
> If so, which index? The first? How does it handle consistency between
> nodes? C, A, or P? For that matter, it sounds like there's no
> configuration (it's always deployed to the default location?) so how do you
> configure the ports that different nodes communicate on?
> mentioned scalability ... but now that I'm looking at the
> website, I don't
> see any mention of clustering. I can't fathom what you'd mean by
> "outrageous scalability" if, in fact, it doesn't scale beyond
> one machine.
> For that matter, is it limited by available memory on one node,
> or does it
> overflow to disk? Does it always persist to disk? What's the
> performance
> hit in that overflow to disk?
> - Globals is obviously being made free to drive users to your
> website, I don't
> see any mention of clustering. I can't fathom what you'd mean by
> "outrageous scalability" if, in fact, it doesn't scale beyond
> one machine.
> For that matter, is it limited by available memory on one node,
> or does it
> overflow to disk? Does it always persist to disk? What's the
> performance
> hit in that overflow to disk?
> commercial products -- Caché, specifically, from what I can tell. I don't
> think there's anything wrong with that as a strategy. But do you think that
> a customer could go live with just Globals? From browsing the website, I
> see in some comments that it doesn't support hot backup and restore, and
> doesn't offer tools for operational use, and is designed as a "very simple"
> persistence framework for Java. As such, one could argue that it's somewhat
> feature-poor compared to other databases. Do you really envision products
> going live on Globals, or do you envision it as "Caché developer edition"?
>
> - For background: is Globals written in M / MUMPS? Is there any plan to
> think there's anything wrong with that as a strategy. But do you think that
> a customer could go live with just Globals? From browsing the website, I
> see in some comments that it doesn't support hot backup and restore, and
> doesn't offer tools for operational use, and is designed as a "very simple"
> persistence framework for Java. As such, one could argue that it's somewhat
> feature-poor compared to other databases. Do you really envision products
> going live on Globals, or do you envision it as "Caché developer edition"?
>
> open source the code itself?
>
> I'm not trying to be combative -- I hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm
> just trying to give you the opportunity to hype your product in a little
> more detail.
>
> To preempt a couple common arguments that cause me, personally, to glaze
> over and move to the next thread (not that you would use these
> specifically...they just happen a lot in these kinds of threads):
> - "Just download the product and try it out for yourself" is _not_ a valid
> argument -- there are over 100 "NoSQL" databases listed on
> nosql-database.org, and more on Wikipedia. Busy developers are looking for
> reasons why they should invest their free time in one over any other.
> - "Comparing this to [other product] is apples and oranges" is also not an
> argument. People say this all the time, but all it actually communicates
> is, "these products are different." But of course they're different. That's
> why we're comparing them. If they were identical, there'd be no point. To
> keep with the metaphor, consider the question to be "when would I want this
> fruit, and not a different one?" and go from there.
>
> matt
>
>
> I'm not trying to be combative -- I hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm
> just trying to give you the opportunity to hype your product in a little
> more detail.
>
> To preempt a couple common arguments that cause me, personally, to glaze
> over and move to the next thread (not that you would use these
> specifically...they just happen a lot in these kinds of threads):
> - "Just download the product and try it out for yourself" is _not_ a valid
> argument -- there are over 100 "NoSQL" databases listed on
> nosql-database.org, and more on Wikipedia. Busy developers are looking for
> reasons why they should invest their free time in one over any other.
> - "Comparing this to [other product] is apples and oranges" is also not an
> argument. People say this all the time, but all it actually communicates
> is, "these products are different." But of course they're different. That's
> why we're comparing them. If they were identical, there'd be no point. To
> keep with the metaphor, consider the question to be "when would I want this
> fruit, and not a different one?" and go from there.
>
> matt
>
Bradford
May 13, 2011, 5:26:52 AM5/13/11
to NOSQL
wat
ian
May 13, 2011, 11:35:28 AM5/13/11
to NOSQL
I think I can translate the bullshit-ese into proper english
blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah balh
blah blah
blah
buy some shit
blah!
blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah balh
blah blah
blah
buy some shit
blah!
Eric Bloch
May 14, 2011, 9:49:51 PM5/14/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/sell_generation
Eric Bloch
616 Virginia Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
Email: eric....@gmail.com
Web page: http://www.virginia-avenue.com/
Phone: 650-458-8929
Bradford
May 15, 2011, 4:38:37 AM5/15/11
to NOSQL
Remember when /n/osql was good?
> ...
>
> read more »
>
> read more »
K.S. Bhaskar
May 17, 2011, 10:15:33 AM5/17/11
to NOSQL
Setting the record straight with respect to GT.M - look for [KSB]
below. Full disclosure: GT.M is my "day job".
Regards
-- Bhaskar
ks dot bhaskar at fisglobal dot com <-- send e-mail here
--
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
[KSB] Although the majority of GT.M users do indeed program in M, the
fact is that the GT.M database is just as accessible from a C main()
program.
> - the GlobalsDB APIs are in-process rather than via, say, a TCP
> interface. As such it should be significantly faster to access from a
> non-M scripting language such as Java or Javascript/Node.js than would
> be GT.M. I've not tried it out yet myself, as I'm very much a
> Javascript person these days and keen to try out their planned Node.js
> APIs. I should be able to report back some performance comparisons
> when I get my hands on the Node.js-compatible version.
[KSB] As discussed above, GT.M does not restrict a user to TCP
access. The primary restriction (which results from the fact that the
database engine is daemonless and processes cooperate to manage the
database - so there is a real time database engine linked into each
processes' address space) is that a GT.M process can have only one
thread. If you can't live with this, then you have to use TCP through
a client such as Rob's.
Another option is to use the GT.CM "database service" that GT.M
includes (GNP - the GT.M Network Protocol is layered on TCP). A
client is coded within GT.M itself, or you can use / adapt other
clients for GNP such as Dave H's PHP gtcmclient (http://
sourceforge.net/projects/gtcmclient).
> I suspect one way things will pan out over coming months will be:
>
> - if you want a fully open source Global-based database technology
> with all the bells and whistles, then GT.M is probably the answer, but
> its interfacing to other languages will be bottlenecked by TCP
> networking limits and indirection (the M equivalent of, eg
> Javascript's eval() function)
>
> - If you want the ultimate in performance and willing to sacrifice
> open source and the high-end scalability options, but remain free,
> then GlobalsDB will be a good choice
>
> - If you want the former but are willing to pay for the extra high-end
> scalability technologies, then full-blown Cache will be your choice.
[KSB] This is a false choice. GT.M gives you high end scalability
with a free / open source license (and support with assured service
levels on commercial terms for those who want it).
> The nice thing is that it will be straightforward to engineer
> applications that can be easily migrated between these three options
> with a minimum of change being needed at the application level.
>
> Regarding your question "is GlobalsDB written in M/ Mumps?" The answer
> is no - I believe it's all C code internally - as is GT.M.
[KSB] Yes, GT.M is mostly written in C, with a few small bits of glue
code in assembly language.
> Anyway, I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions,
> at least in terms of my perspective on things. Personally, I think
> GlobalsDB is a great thing and nice to see InterSystems venturing into
> a new direction: I think that's only to be encouraged and can only
> help the NoSQL community. I can't wait to try it out once that
> Node.js interface is ready :-)
>
> Rob
[KSB] <...snip...>
below. Full disclosure: GT.M is my "day job".
Regards
-- Bhaskar
ks dot bhaskar at fisglobal dot com <-- send e-mail here
--
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
fact is that the GT.M database is just as accessible from a C main()
program.
> - the GlobalsDB APIs are in-process rather than via, say, a TCP
> interface. As such it should be significantly faster to access from a
> non-M scripting language such as Java or Javascript/Node.js than would
> be GT.M. I've not tried it out yet myself, as I'm very much a
> Javascript person these days and keen to try out their planned Node.js
> APIs. I should be able to report back some performance comparisons
> when I get my hands on the Node.js-compatible version.
access. The primary restriction (which results from the fact that the
database engine is daemonless and processes cooperate to manage the
database - so there is a real time database engine linked into each
processes' address space) is that a GT.M process can have only one
thread. If you can't live with this, then you have to use TCP through
a client such as Rob's.
Another option is to use the GT.CM "database service" that GT.M
includes (GNP - the GT.M Network Protocol is layered on TCP). A
client is coded within GT.M itself, or you can use / adapt other
clients for GNP such as Dave H's PHP gtcmclient (http://
sourceforge.net/projects/gtcmclient).
> I suspect one way things will pan out over coming months will be:
>
> - if you want a fully open source Global-based database technology
> with all the bells and whistles, then GT.M is probably the answer, but
> its interfacing to other languages will be bottlenecked by TCP
> networking limits and indirection (the M equivalent of, eg
> Javascript's eval() function)
>
> - If you want the ultimate in performance and willing to sacrifice
> open source and the high-end scalability options, but remain free,
> then GlobalsDB will be a good choice
>
> - If you want the former but are willing to pay for the extra high-end
> scalability technologies, then full-blown Cache will be your choice.
with a free / open source license (and support with assured service
levels on commercial terms for those who want it).
> The nice thing is that it will be straightforward to engineer
> applications that can be easily migrated between these three options
> with a minimum of change being needed at the application level.
>
> Regarding your question "is GlobalsDB written in M/ Mumps?" The answer
> is no - I believe it's all C code internally - as is GT.M.
code in assembly language.
> Anyway, I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions,
> at least in terms of my perspective on things. Personally, I think
> GlobalsDB is a great thing and nice to see InterSystems venturing into
> a new direction: I think that's only to be encouraged and can only
> help the NoSQL community. I can't wait to try it out once that
> Node.js interface is ready :-)
>
> Rob
Ronnie Redd
May 17, 2011, 1:08:27 PM5/17/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
I suspect we can drop this conversation and thread and chalk up the OP to SPAM.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOSQL" group.
> To post to this group, send email to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nosql-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nosql-discussion?hl=en.
>
>
--
Henrique Oliveira - TSI UTFPR
May 26, 2011, 4:30:23 PM5/26/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
Boa Tarde a todos,
Alguém teria um Benchmark entre Couch, Mongo. Pois estou escrevendo um
artigo e seria muito útil para mim se alguém pudesse me ajudar!
--
Good afternoon everyone,
Does anyone have a benchmark between Couch, Mongo. Because I am writing an
article and would be very helpful to me if someone could help me!
Hu Xu
May 26, 2011, 10:25:42 PM5/26/11
to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages