1. 45
  1.  

  2. 6

    Ouch, no prisoners.

    1. 6
      1. 5

        This response confuses me. There’s an appeal that they exist in a kind of useless corner of PACELC (“sometimes we’re consistent and slow, and sometimes we’re inconsistent,”) a diagram that I feel wants to bamboozle me but just makes me cringe, some Java Jargon about data grids, and a bit of backing off on availability for future versions of particular object types.

        1. 0

          Yep, they’re butt-hurt over someone exposing the fact that their software doesn’t do what people expect it to do.

        2. 2

          “Before going into that[,] lets[sic] go into how common network partitions are.”

          This sentence, or something like it, is a pretty sure sign that what you’re going to read in a few seconds contains some (or is entirely) bullshit.

          1. 1

            The best I can interpret from this is that the author seems to believe that a PA system requires losing writes. The blog seems to be saying “Yes, we are PA/EC, so of course these are the results you’d expect”. Which is clearly not true.

          2. 4

            Thank you Kyle for taking the time to do this research on your own time and publishing the results publicly.

            1. 4

              Quite fascinating that there is a Database Software which has a unique number generator which fails to generate unique numbers, locks which do not lock, queues which do not queue and atomic references which aren’t in fact atomic.

              1. 2

                Looking at how the cockroachdb folks implemented their distributed datastore and the years it took, it is extremely hard and takes a lot of validated tests (like how foundationdb did them) to ship a production-grade fault-tolerant product.

                @aphyr, hopefully the arangodb folks contact you to test/validate their raft-based datastore. Both them and cockroachdb have friendly apache2 licenses so that’s always a good sign!