4 ms·

Your comment doesnt seem fair at all. The blog post is from after they worked hard to fix everything. The comment from Jepsen that you are quoting is from befor

by greggh 8y ago

Your comment doesnt seem fair at all. The blog post is from after they worked hard to fix everything. The comment from Jepsen that you are quoting is from before any of that fix work was done. You are comparing two very different situations.

drej 8y ago
I know they worked hard, I appreciate that. But I got a wholly different feeling about the state of things from those two sources. Also, does everyone run the very latest version of all their software? What use to me is that my vendor has fixed everything in the newest release that I am not using? Oh and yes, I'm only quoting bits of each (fully knowing you all have links to both and can read it in full), but that's to illustrate the omission from the PR piece. I know that aphyr concludes that work has been done, "By 2.6.0-rc10, Fauna had addressed almost all issues we identified; some minor work around availability and schema changes is still in progress.", but that doesn't change the fact that the blog post doesn't address their past shortcomings.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- freels 8y ago
  The latest released version, 2.6.0, has most of the fixes as outlined in the post & report. Minor/ergonomic fixes are forthcoming. If you’re running on cloud, we do the upgrade work for you.
- samcday 8y ago
  Why should they be required to "address their past shortcomings"? Last I checked, when I visit the Windows website it doesn't say "Really stable now but we've had 1,123,432 critical security bugs in the past!". Same for any other product or open source project. Acknowledging current limitations is an absolute must, and posting thoughtful articles that delve into a past issue and how it was addressed are a bonus. Otherwise, there's no need for self-flagellation ;)
  - drej 8y ago
    Um, that simile does not make any sense - because we're not talking about their website, but their blog about Jepsen tests, which showed some shortcomings (and it is not derogatory, it's extremely rare that somebody passes Jepsen with flying colours).
- jwr 8y ago
  Approach like yours causes companies not to submit to Jepsen testing and try to hide shortcomings. They did submit, they found problems (it is rare for the Jepsen suite not to find any), and they fixed them. This is a fantastic result and definitely one to be proud of. Additionally, I am not sure if you fully appreciate the complexity of Jepsen and distributed databases in general. As for me, I've actually been waiting for this result to recommend the use of FaunaDB in a commercial setting.
  - drej 8y ago
    Oh I do appreciate it - I've read Martin Kleppmann's book cover to cover and then watched all of the speeches Kyle Kingsbury has given in the past three years or so. I love this area, my absolute favourite is deterministic testing of FoundationDB [0]. It's because I appreciate this work that I felt the blog post didn't do it justice. And I know Jepsen hardly ever passes (ZooKeeper, I believe, did). And I don't take FaunaDB's hard work for granted. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc

by greggh 8y ago

drej 8y ago

I know they worked hard, I appreciate that. But I got a wholly different feeling about the state of things from those two sources. Also, does everyone run the very latest version of all their software? What use to me is that my vendor has fixed everything in the newest release that I am not using? Oh and yes, I'm only quoting bits of each (fully knowing you all have links to both and can read it in full), but that's to illustrate the omission from the PR piece. I know that aphyr concludes that work has been done, "By 2.6.0-rc10, Fauna had addressed almost all issues we identified; some minor work around availability and schema changes is still in progress.", but that doesn't change the fact that the blog post doesn't address their past shortcomings.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freels 8y ago
The latest released version, 2.6.0, has most of the fixes as outlined in the post & report. Minor/ergonomic fixes are forthcoming. If you’re running on cloud, we do the upgrade work for you.
samcday 8y ago
Why should they be required to "address their past shortcomings"? Last I checked, when I visit the Windows website it doesn't say "Really stable now but we've had 1,123,432 critical security bugs in the past!". Same for any other product or open source project. Acknowledging current limitations is an absolute must, and posting thoughtful articles that delve into a past issue and how it was addressed are a bonus. Otherwise, there's no need for self-flagellation ;)
- drej 8y ago
  Um, that simile does not make any sense - because we're not talking about their website, but their blog about Jepsen tests, which showed some shortcomings (and it is not derogatory, it's extremely rare that somebody passes Jepsen with flying colours).
jwr 8y ago
Approach like yours causes companies not to submit to Jepsen testing and try to hide shortcomings. They did submit, they found problems (it is rare for the Jepsen suite not to find any), and they fixed them. This is a fantastic result and definitely one to be proud of. Additionally, I am not sure if you fully appreciate the complexity of Jepsen and distributed databases in general. As for me, I've actually been waiting for this result to recommend the use of FaunaDB in a commercial setting.
- drej 8y ago
  Oh I do appreciate it - I've read Martin Kleppmann's book cover to cover and then watched all of the speeches Kyle Kingsbury has given in the past three years or so. I love this area, my absolute favourite is deterministic testing of FoundationDB [0]. It's because I appreciate this work that I felt the blog post didn't do it justice. And I know Jepsen hardly ever passes (ZooKeeper, I believe, did). And I don't take FaunaDB's hard work for granted. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc