3 ms·
They did have 100 million to burn, but my mostly-wild-guess is it was closer to $1.5M/yr. But that gives you an in-house SaaS DB used across a hundred other tea
by 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
They did have 100 million to burn, but my mostly-wild-guess is it was closer to $1.5M/yr. But that gives you an in-house SaaS DB used across a hundred other teams/products/services, so it actually saved money (and nothing else matched its performance/CAP/functionality).
Cassandra is too opinionated and its CAP behavior wasn't great for a service like this, so they built on top of Riak. (This also eliminated any thoughts I had about Erlang being some uber-language for distributed systems, as there were (are?) tons of bugs and missing edge cases in Riak)
- staticassertion 5y agoErlang gives you great primitives for building reliable protocols, but they're just primitives, and there are tons of footguns since building protocols is hard.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoBecause Riak uses vector clocks instead of cell timestamps? Cassandra's ONE/QUORUM/ALL consistency levels otherwise allow tuning for tolerance of CP vs AP, don't they?
- 0xbadcafebee 5y agoTo be honest I don't know, I wasn't there for the initial decision, but I know it wasn't just about CAP. It could have been as simple as Riak was easier to use (which I don't know either)