4 ms·

<< or FoundationDB presumably has >> You mean FaunaDB?

elvinyung 9y ago
FoundationDB was the proto-CockroachDB (or rather, CockroachDB is essentially a re-attempt at building FoundationDB). It was an early attempt at building a NewSQL database. (NewSQL per se, i.e. not counting parallel databases from the pre-NoSQL age, like Gamma [1], Volcano [2] and Grace [3], which share many of the same design principles.) FoundationDB was acquhired by Apple, but its failure is generally attributed to a poorly-performing SQL layer: https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-fast-key-value-store-not-enough/ https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-... [1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90.pdf http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90.... [2] https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b186061.pdf https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b... [3] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e43cc837003639f.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e...
Scaevolus 9y ago
No, FoundationDB which was posting some VERY impressive numbers before being acquired by Apple in March 2015. Here they were doing 15M writes/s on 32 16-core servers, at a rate of 30,000 writes/s/core: http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.foundationdb.com:80/databases-at-14.4mhz http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.founda... FaunaDB managed 120,000 writes per second on 15 machines. https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performance https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performa... (Yes, not equivalent benchmarks, but that's still a 50x difference in magnitude.)
idibidiartists 9y ago
Down voted for asking a question? The system is definitely broke in such instances.
- acdha 9y ago
  You worded the question in a way suggested you thought the previous commenter was wrong. That reads like either being a FaunaFB fanboy or not taking time to learn about Foundation, both of which will reliably attract downvotes. Had you worded it differently I doubt you'd be getting downvoted.
  - idibidiartists 9y ago
    So essentially the HN commenting UX is one of walking on egg shells.
    - saghm 9y ago
      I mean, a two-second Google could haven't shown you what FoundationDB was.

FoundationDB was the proto-CockroachDB (or rather, CockroachDB is essentially a re-attempt at building FoundationDB). It was an early attempt at building a NewSQL database. (NewSQL per se, i.e. not counting parallel databases from the pre-NoSQL age, like Gamma [1], Volcano [2] and Grace [3], which share many of the same design principles.) FoundationDB was acquhired by Apple, but its failure is generally attributed to a poorly-performing SQL layer: https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-fast-key-value-store-not-enough/ https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-... [1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90.pdf http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90.... [2] https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b186061.pdf https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b... [3] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e43cc837003639f.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e...

Scaevolus 9y ago

No, FoundationDB which was posting some VERY impressive numbers before being acquired by Apple in March 2015. Here they were doing 15M writes/s on 32 16-core servers, at a rate of 30,000 writes/s/core: http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.foundationdb.com:80/databases-at-14.4mhz http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.founda... FaunaDB managed 120,000 writes per second on 15 machines. https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performance https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performa... (Yes, not equivalent benchmarks, but that's still a 50x difference in magnitude.)

idibidiartists 9y ago

Down voted for asking a question? The system is definitely broke in such instances.

acdha 9y ago
You worded the question in a way suggested you thought the previous commenter was wrong. That reads like either being a FaunaFB fanboy or not taking time to learn about Foundation, both of which will reliably attract downvotes. Had you worded it differently I doubt you'd be getting downvoted.
- idibidiartists 9y ago
  So essentially the HN commenting UX is one of walking on egg shells.
  - saghm 9y ago
    I mean, a two-second Google could haven't shown you what FoundationDB was.