101–110 of 119 posts
The clock begins counting down to Datadog figuring out how to charge per node, cpu, container, RAM (KB), and unicode characters indexed.
Isn't this what they already do? Log pricing is per ingested GB and monitoring is charged per node.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please forgive and help remedy my ignorance: it's a coherent goal to want OrioleDB to be the go-to storage engine for Postgres, on Supabase?
I don't want to hijack Datadogs+Quickwit's post comment section with unrelated promotional-looking info. Quick summary below but if you have any other questions pls tag olirice in a Supabase GH discussion. The OrioleDB storage engine for postgres is a drop-in replacement for the default heap method. Its takes advantage of modern hardware (e.g. SSDs) and cloud infrastructure. The most basic benefit is that throughput…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to hijack Datadogs+Quickwit's post comment section with unrelated promotional-looking info. Quick summary below but if you have any other questions pls tag olirice in a Supabase GH discussion. The OrioleDB storage engine for postgres is a drop-in replacement for the default heap method. Its takes advantage of modern hardware (e.g. SSDs) and cloud infrastructure. The most basic benefit is that throughput…
Makes sense, perhaps the previous commenter thought OrioleDB was itself a database rather than an implementation detail alternative to current databases. That's what I thought before I went to their site.
We just moved from Elastic to Quickwit. Sigh. What other open source, object storage backed logging databases do people recommend?
Loki by Grafana Labs is nice ( https://grafana.com/oss/loki/ ). There was a time (3+ years ago) where the product was changing pretty rapidly and much of the documentation was on git, so we had a few headaches doing minor version bumps, but I believe its much more mature now.
> This summer, the wind started to turn. We witnessed stronger open-source traction, our revenue increased dramatically, and VCs became more insistent. It was time for us to open a new chapter for the company and raise a series A round. Rhetorically, why was it time for this? Practically, the answer is right there: the VCs wouldn't accept a mere rapidly-growing company with great tech. It's either an up round so they…
> why was it time for this? Practically, the answer is right there: the VCs wouldn't accept a mere rapidly-growing company with great tech. Remember that this is a decision you make when you accept the seed money, not when it comes to looking for further money. If you want to build a profitable growing company, bc funding is not the path to that.
> This summer, the wind started to turn. We witnessed stronger open-source traction, our revenue increased dramatically, and VCs became more insistent. It was time for us to open a new chapter for the company and raise a series A round. Rhetorically, why was it time for this? Practically, the answer is right there: the VCs wouldn't accept a mere rapidly-growing company with great tech. It's either an up round so they…
The sentence in the blog post is a tad misleading. I suspect François is not really talking about VCs that had already invested in quickwit, but about the usual flow of other VCs who contacted us, to know about the company and be part of our eventual series A.
It just generally felt like we were "at a crossing".
No one twisted our arm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The architecture of Husky seems fairly similar to quickwit. https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/introducing-husky... https://quickwit.io/docs/main-branch/overview/architecture
It’s an ourobouros of influences: the Husky creators left DD to make Warpstream, Warpstream inspired Quickwit, and now Quickwit is joining DD.
The Husky blog post was released after we released a few versions of quickwit if I recall correctly. It was not an inspiration either.
As far as I know, the similarities are fortuitous.
> This summer, the wind started to turn. We witnessed stronger open-source traction, our revenue increased dramatically, and VCs became more insistent. It was time for us to open a new chapter for the company and raise a series A round. Rhetorically, why was it time for this? Practically, the answer is right there: the VCs wouldn't accept a mere rapidly-growing company with great tech. It's either an up round so they…
Our seed round was 100% made of SAFE, so VCs did not have the power to force us to do anything. The sentence in the blog post is a tad misleading. I suspect François is not really talking about VCs that had already invested in quickwit, but about the usual flow of other VCs who contacted us, to know about the company and be part of our eventual series A. It just generally felt like we were "at a crossing". No one twi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love quickwit, unfortunately datadog has a history of murdering open source (e.g. vector.io halting development and never fixing gross bugs)
Yeah, a Vector dev that is now at Datadog told me that Vector is essentially deprecated.
Sqreen was a great product for startups. Unfortunately acquired by the Datadog. Product was never fully integrated into their offerings and there is no such alternative.