Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

blog.fauna.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

#21

Post by dhruvgupta »

sandstrom wrote: post #19

Interesting to see new DBs cropping up! I think there is much to improve over the choices popular today. However, it's difficult to quickly grasp what makes Fauna unique. A comparison with e.g. CockroachDB would be nice! A good example of doing this well is RethinkDB, that provided two comparisons with MongoDB (one biased, one unbiased). 1. Technical comparison (unbiased): https://rethinkdb.com/docs/comparison-tables…

Some conversation on CockroachDB vs FaunaDB here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16878102

The primary difference is in the interface (SQL vs NoSQL), the transactional protocol, and capabilities such as built-in multi-tenancy, temporality..

Might be useful to note that GV invested in both (Fauna was after Cockroach).

Re: Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

#23

Post by viraptor »

winetraveler wrote: post #4

Jepsen is an important sanity check on marketing. Easy to say in collateral you are "strict" ACID -- Jepsen proves (or denies) those claims. Some fun reports over there http://jepsen.io/analyses

A bit more precisely: Jepsen denies or doesn't a small subset of those claims.

It can't prove strict acid because it only observes behaviour it can observe. There are code paths it won't see in practice, so the best it can do is refute.

It also can't refute acid as a whole. If you look at the reports, they usually check the very basic behaviour - simple sets and gets. While that can tell you a lot about the system, you can't say it will generalise to complicated joins, multi-row operations, backend plugins, etc.

Re: Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

#25

Post by evanweaver »

qaq wrote: post #17

This whole space got really tough after Apple opensourced FoundationDB. It will take few years for higher level solutions that build on top of FoundatioDB to surface but after they do it will be really tough for the competitors.

Not sure why building on FoundationDB is better than building on the similar internal storage foundations current vendors have already implemented?

Re: Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

#26

Post by qaq »

evanweaver wrote: post #25
qaq wrote: post #17

This whole space got really tough after Apple opensourced FoundationDB. It will take few years for higher level solutions that build on top of FoundatioDB to surface but after they do it will be really tough for the competitors.

Not sure why building on FoundationDB is better than building on the similar internal storage foundations current vendors have already implemented?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc

Re: Verifying Transactional Consistency with Jepsen and FaunaDB

#27

Post by sandstrom »

dhruvgupta wrote: post #21
sandstrom wrote: post #19

Interesting to see new DBs cropping up! I think there is much to improve over the choices popular today. However, it's difficult to quickly grasp what makes Fauna unique. A comparison with e.g. CockroachDB would be nice! A good example of doing this well is RethinkDB, that provided two comparisons with MongoDB (one biased, one unbiased). 1. Technical comparison (unbiased): https://rethinkdb.com/docs/comparison-tables…

Some conversation on CockroachDB vs FaunaDB here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16878102 The primary difference is in the interface (SQL vs NoSQL), the transactional protocol, and capabilities such as built-in multi-tenancy, temporality.. Might be useful to note that GV invested in both (Fauna was after Cockroach).

Thanks!
Post reply on HN