Hacker News Reader

Comment by crop_rotation | Hacker News Reader

HN seems to love sqlite but I don't know how to protect against dataloss using sqlite (yes I know litestream exists). Unless you sync disk state to remote storage on every write, wouldn't you always lose some writes? Losing writes is never a good idea. You might think it doesn't matter at your scale, but suddenly it might and you won't like SQLite the same amount anymore.

View on HN

I don't think the issue is unique to SQLite. Postgres & MySQL both have async replication options that are commonly used. There's always going to be a latency and throughput trade-off when you use synchronous replication and many people don't want to take the performance hit.

We do have plans for adding synchronous replication in LiteFS now that we have LiteFS Cloud released. Ideally, we'd like to make it so you can do synchronous replication on a per-transaction basis so you can choose when you want to take the latency hit.

>Unless you sync disk state to remote storage on every write, wouldn't you always lose some writes

You can trade durability for availability (the database isn't useable until the disk is available). You'd have some sort of redundant disk setup (on top of normal backups)

You run into the same problem with RDBMS like Postgres. If you enable synchronous replication, you go from 1 SPOF to 2 (both servers need to be available to ack a write or you lose your redundant data guarantee).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com