Erlang fault-tolerant application: PA or CA of CAP?

Question

I have already asked a question regarding a simple fault-tolerant soft real-time web application for a pizza delivery shop.

I have gotten really nice comments and answers there, but I disagree in that it is a true web service. Rather than a web service, it is more of a real-time system to accept orders from customers, control the dispatching of these orders and control the vehicles that deliver those orders in real time.

Moreover, unlike a 'true' web service this system is not intended to have many users - it is just a few dispatchers (telephone operators) and a few delivery drivers that will use it (as for now I have no requirement to provide direct access to the service to the actual customers; only the dispatchers and delivery drivers will have the direct access).

Hence this question is a bit more general.

I have found that in order to make a right choice for a NoSQL data storage option for this application first thing that I have to do is to make a choice between CA, PA and CP according to the CAP theorem.

Now, the Building Web Applications with Erlang book says that "while it [Mnesia] is not a SQL database, it is a CA database like a SQL database. It will not handle network partition". The same book says that the CouchDB database is a PA database.

Having that in mind, I think that the very first thing that I need to do with my application is to decide what the 'fault-tolerance' term means regarding to CAP.

The simple requirement that I have is to have the application available 24/7(R1). The other one is that there is no need to scale, the application will have a very modest amount of users (it is probably not possible to have thousands of dispatchers) (R2).

Now, does R1 require the application to provide Consistency, Availability and Partition Tolerance and with what priorities?

What type of data storage option will better handle the following issues:

1. Providing 24/7 availability for a dispatcher (a person who accepts phone calls from customers and who uses a CRM) to look up customer records and put orders into the system;
2. Looking up current ongoing served orders and their status (placed, baking, dispatched, delivering, delivered) in real time;
3. Keep track of all working vehicles' locations and their payloads in real time;
4. Recover any part of the system after system crash or network crash to continue providing 1,2 and 3;

To sum it up: What kind of Data Storage (CA, PA or CP) will suite the system described above better? What kind of Data Storage will better satisfy the R1 requirement?

Truant

Answer 1

• For your 24/ requirement you are searching a database with (High) Availability because you want your requests to succeed everytime (even if they are only error results).
• A netsplit would bringt your whole system down, when you have no partition tolerance
• Consistency is nice to have, but you can only have 2 of 3.

Your best bet will be a PA solution. I highly recomment a solution which has been inspired by Amazon Dynamo. The best known dynamo implementations are riak and couchdb. Riak even allows you to change PA to some other form by tuning the read and write replicas.

Knot

Or you can just use Dynamo db yourself, it's been available on AWS since January 2012. – Invincible

Answer 2

First, don't confuse CAP "Availability" with "High Availability". They have nothing to do with each other. The A in CAP simply means "All DB nodes can answer queries". To get High Availability, you must be in multiple data centers, you must have robust documented procedures for maintenance, expansion, etc. None of that depends on your CAP choice.

Second, be realistic about your requirements. A stock-trading application might have a requirement for 100% uptime, because every second of downtime could loose millions of dollars. On the other hand, I'm guessing your pizza joint might loose tens of dollars for every minute it's down. So it doesn't make sense to spend millions trying to keep it up. Try to compute your actual costs.

Third, always evaluate your choice vs mainstream. You could just go CA (MySQL) and quickly fail-over to the slaves when problems happen. Be realistic about the costs (and risks) of building on new technology. If you really expect your system to run for 5 years without downtime, ask for proof that someone else has run that database for 5 years without downtime.

If you go "AP" and have remote people (drivers, etc.) then you'll need to write an app that stores their data on their phone and sends it in the background (with retries). Of course, you could do this regardless of weather your database was CA or AP.

If you want high uptimes, you can either:

• Increase MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) - Buy redundant power supplies, buy dual ethernet cards, etc..

• Decrease MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery) - Just make sure when failure happens you can recover quickly. (Fail over to slave)

I've seen people spend tens of thousands of dollars on MTBF, only to be down for 8 hours while they restore their backup. It makes more sense to ensure MTTR is low before attacking MTBF.

Olnek