3 ms·
Yeah that seems like an untenable design choice. Was quite interested until I read that. Max TPS? and MTTR when sequence inevitably shits itself?
by lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Yeah that seems like an untenable design choice. Was quite interested until I read that. Max TPS? and MTTR when sequence inevitably shits itself?
- richieartoul 3y agoReplied above
- foobiekr 3y agoYou can trivially scale fdb to tens of millions of tx/sec for write-heavy workloads without a hardcore cluster for transactions of reasonable complexity (though with careful design on my part and the part of others for collisions to be unlikely). MTTR on failure is seconds. Really, there's no system I've used that is as robust and performant as fdb and I include s3 in that list - s3, for example, _routinely_ has operations with orders of magnitude latency variance and huge, correlated spikes.