OK, so cynicism warning here. After seeing what seems like oodles of sqlite and rocksdb plus a bespoke cross-machine coordinator databases posted on HN, is thi

OK, so cynicism warning here. After seeing what seems like oodles of sqlite and rocksdb plus a bespoke cross-machine coordinator databases posted on HN, is this like the new employment guaranty architecture? Do any of these have actual ability over something like ScyllaDB (I'm taking cassandra out because of the GC pauses probably being a problem) RocksDB in particular is a single node SSD-tuned log-structured merge tree "database" written in a non-GC language. ScyllaDB is the same, but comes with the cassandra-protocol scaling and multiple datacenters. Sure, go ahead and market your whatever, but if you're just (IMO) repackaging a log structured merge tree engine, with various newly implemented distributed transaction / conflict resolution coordination schemes .... you should probably show some good due diligence on if they are, you know, somewhat correct. The Jepsen test suite basically shows every distributed data processing engine as flawed the first couple times. So much so I don't really trust your new fangled engine unless you pass Jepsen to some degree. Is there some comparison metrics (lies, big lies, and benchmarks and all that) showing why these semi-bespoke databases are being used versus other, say, more proven, schemes?