> If they're even talking about avoiding transactions for speed purposes (no matter how stupidly) As many have pointed out, so much criticism of this article i

> If they're even talking about avoiding transactions for speed purposes (no matter how stupidly) As many have pointed out, so much criticism of this article ignores that it is comparing to other key-value stores which are not transactional. Many of what this would compete with are AP, with Consistency not guaranteed. It really sounds like they should be talking about MySQL cluster, which is protocol compatible but a completely separate implementation and essentially a key-value store with RDBMS attributes atop it. It supports many-master mode like mongo and other distributed systems, which is fairly mandatory for replacing them. It's hard to argue you can replace HDFS with anything that's not distributed, and if you didn't, why wouldn't you just use .. the actual FS? The author may not really understand that HDFS is optimized for storing large-ish files.