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

ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

scylladb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#31

Post by tirus »

TheGuyWhoCodes wrote: post #9

Congratulations to the team! I would love to move over from Apache Cassandra to Scylla but honestly I'm a bit afraid to do that. I have no doubt that it's much faster but I haven't seen hard numbers about consistency and availability. Apache Cassandra is a much older project with many installations and is battle tested (to a degree) how can I be sure that Scylla will behave as stable as Cassandra in that regard?

We use 1.6 in production on AWS i3.16xlarges and it's great. We've seen a reduction to less than half the nodes and over 100k per node requests/sec (up from 4k req/sec for Cassandra). Very few issues and those that come up get immediate attention from core developers that actually wrote the code you're having issues with.

Absolutely 100% recommend.

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#33

Post by hendzen »

threeseed wrote: post #20
hendzen wrote: post #2

If I was Datastax I would be scared of Scylla. They have momentum and they are one of the best engineering teams around outside of top teams at Google/FB etc.

I wouldn't. Enterprise companies care about performance, sure. But far, far less than they care about being on a supported platform. DataStax has done the hard yards over the years to prove themselves capable of supporting Cassandra. SycllaDB has no street cred at all. So SycllaDB might make some inroads in performance critical startups and web companies. But that is likely to be about it.

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matter quite a bit.

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#34

Post by thekozmo »

mwcampbell wrote: post #32

Looks like this is the same team that brought us OSv ( http://osv.io/ ). So is OSv abandoned now?

It's not abandoned, we continue to maintain and contribute to it but sadly, it's not our business focus in the present. I really want to see it to win centerstage one day in the future.

Few orgs do use it in production. It's really cool but along with it the cloud needs to change. For instance, we wanted to have a 1-minute-granularity price scheme from the cloud vendors so it will resemble a container (just with hardware-based security..). This any many needs to happen for it.

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#35

Post by threeseed »

hendzen wrote: post #33
threeseed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't. Enterprise companies care about performance, sure. But far, far less than they care about being on a supported platform. DataStax has done the hard yards over the years to prove themselves capable of supporting Cassandra. SycllaDB has no street cred at all. So SycllaDB might make some inroads in performance critical startups and web companies. But that is likely to be about it.

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matter quite a bit.

Enterprise companies spend millions on database projects and majority of the cost comes from Professional Services and Consultancies engaged in data migration etc. So cost of the product itself is never the driving factor especially when the cost will be so substantially less already than Teradata or Oracle.

And the most important part of a database is confidence. You need to be able to trust that when you have a Production outage IT is able to talk to someone to fix it. DataStax has proven capable of meeting that task. It's very difficult for a second tier player to do the same especially with Cassandra being such a niche product.

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#38

Post by hendzen »

threeseed wrote: post #35
hendzen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matter quite a bit.

Enterprise companies spend millions on database projects and majority of the cost comes from Professional Services and Consultancies engaged in data migration etc. So cost of the product itself is never the driving factor especially when the cost will be so substantially less already than Teradata or Oracle. And the most important part of a database is confidence. You need to be able to trust that when you have a Pro…

I used to work for a database company and have been involved in the purchasing side of database support contracts. Professional Services/Consulting is a small revenue line (and TCO component) relative to support licensing. It also has considerably lower margins.

Scylla is an upstart... but I would not call them a second tier player. DataStax is already trying and failing [0, 1] to incorporate ideas from Scylla in to their product.

Yes, support and SLAs matter. And this round of funding will go a long way toward helping Scylla build out those parts of their business.

[0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10989

[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8520

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#39

Post by agentgt »

You know if Postgres can just get some better distributed/elastic support it could do some damage.

I switched from Cassandra to citus + pipelinedb (and I'm JVM guy). Postgres is such an awesome platform. I'm planning on looking into some logical decoding.

Re: ScyllaDB Closes $16M in Series B Funding

#40

Post by manigandham »

agentgt wrote: post #39

You know if Postgres can just get some better distributed/elastic support it could do some damage. I switched from Cassandra to citus + pipelinedb (and I'm JVM guy). Postgres is such an awesome platform. I'm planning on looking into some logical decoding.

Postgres is a completely different type of database, there's not much comparison with cassandra/scylla at all.

It also has a way to go with just scale-up performance before it even gets to scale-out.

Post reply on HN