Shared-nothing architecture

A shared-nothing architecture (SN) is a distributed-computing architecture in which each update request is satisfied by a single node (processor/memory/storage unit). The intent is to eliminate contention among nodes. Nodes do not share (independently access) memory or storage. One alternative architecture is shared everything, in which requests are satisfied by arbitrary combinations of nodes. This may introduce contention, as multiple nodes may seek to update the same data at the same time.

SN eliminates single points of failure, allowing the overall system to continue operating despite failures in individual nodes and allowing individual nodes to upgrade without a system-wide shutdown.[1]

A SN system can scale simply by adding nodes, since no central resource bottlenecks the system.[2] In databases, another term for SN is sharding. A SN system typically partitions its data among many nodes. A refinement is to replicate commonly used but infrequently modified data across many nodes, allowing more requests to be resolved on a single node.

History

Michael Stonebraker at the University of California, Berkeley used the term in a 1986 database paper.[3] Teradata delivered the first SN database system in 1983.[4] Tandem Computers released NonStop SQL, a shared nothing database, in 1984.[5]

Applications

Shared-nothing is popular for web development.

Shared-nothing architectures are prevalent for data warehousing applications, although requests that require data from multiple nodes can dramatically reduce throughput.[6]

gollark: "Deprecated" means "use discouraged, might go away", which seems to be the case *now*, not "removed right now".
gollark: When you say "deprecated" you're not using the old-CC-wiki definition of it as "removed", right?
gollark: It seems more like a bug of some kind, if it removed krists from your account despite the name being invalid.
gollark: Basically, even ignoring security issues, it would probably have more overhead than just running the chunks on the server would, and introduce an exciting new set of problems.
gollark: Also, you would run into issues like having to synchronize state with the server still, random connection outages/failures of your computer, interaction across chunk borders being run on different computers being *interesting*, possibly claims...

See also

References
  1. Wright, Dave (2014-09-17). "The Advantages of a Shared Nothing Architecture for Truly Non-Disruptive Upgrades". netapp.com. Retrieved 2019-10-31.
  2. Blankenhorn, Dana (February 27, 2006). "Shared nothing coming to open source". ZDNet. Retrieved June 21, 2012.
  3. The Case for Shared Nothing Architecture by Michael Stonebraker. [Originally published in Database Engineering, Volume 9, Number 1 (1986).](PDF)
  4. "Teradata History". Teradata.com. Retrieved 2013-06-16.
  5. NonStop SQL, A Distributed, High-Performance, High-Availability Implementation of SQL, Tandem Technical Report TR-87.4
  6. "Article on Shared Nothing from the point of view of a Shared Nothing Vendor" (PDF).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.