3 ms·
It's a shame they don't open source it. It's funny too, being AWS they really don't have to worry about AWS running a cheaper service, so at that point why not
by sam0x17 5y ago
It's a shame they don't open source it. It's funny too, being AWS they really don't have to worry about AWS running a cheaper service, so at that point why not open source it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nexuist 5y agoThey probably view it as a competitive advantage that Azure or GCP would try to copy if they figured out the "secret sauce."
- blowski 5y agoAzure has Cosmos which is arguably better than DynamoDB for a lot of use cases.
- staticassertion 5y agoI kinda doubt it. It's probably just that open sourcing it won't provide much utility (I bet lots of code is aws specific) and just adds a new maintenance burden for them.
- bitexploder 5y agoThe way you need to write code for a massively scalable service is just different. And the things you need to operate a service are also just different.
- sam0x17 5y agoAzure has Cosmos and Google has Datastore. They would never.
- pclmulqdq 5y agoAzure has a better product (Cosmos is damn good) and Google engineers have too much hubris to import something from lowly Amazon engineers.
- js4ever 5y agoThere is a compatible open source alternative here, https://www.scylladb.com/alternator/ https://www.scylladb.com/alternator/
- gautamdivgi 5y agoIf you’ve read their paper, there is a lot of detail in it to create your own. Of course they haven’t given out the code but the paper is a pretty solid design document.