4 ms·

Were there other distributed databases that did pass the fault injection testing?

• jeffbee 5y ago
  There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. In general I think people who think they want to do FoundationDB owe themselves a serious contemplation of the cost/benefit of using Cloud Spanner instead. Obviously you cannot do your own fault injection testing of Spanner, but it does have end-to-end checksums.
  • sigstoat 5y ago
    > There weren't any, which is why that particular shop elected to roll their own distributed system on top of rocks. that's nuts. rocks could've been added as a storage engine to fdb far more easily.
    • ryanworl 5y ago
      This is currently in progress right now. https://github.com/apple/foundationdb/blob/e7d7b39f12afa8ea21aeb94972fc79cd7b5edbab/fdbserver/KeyValueStoreRocksDB.actor.cpp https://github.com/apple/foundationdb/blob/e7d7b39f12afa8ea2...
    • jeffbee 5y ago
      For the record, I said the same thing. But it's a management problem because on the one hand you have a known open project with demonstrable flaws, and on the other you have your own in-house developers and you will tend to discount the bugs they haven't written yet. But, also for the same record, thinking you can implement a reliable, globally-replicated key-value store on top of FoundationDB that is cheaper and better than Cloud Spanner may be evidence of the same cognitive bias.
      • sigstoat 5y ago
        > But, also for the same record, thinking you can implement a reliable, globally-replicated key-value store on top of FoundationDB that is cheaper and better than Cloud Spanner may be evidence of the same cognitive bias. man, good thing nobody made any claim like that.