oh well, maybe indeed I assumed more about general knowledge of new database technologies around.
voltdb (Stonebraker's solution) is in-memory store, so are few other of all this new wave of solutions (e.g. you don't want active mongo dataset to fall out of memory, as well as hit any contention on r/w lock).
I didn't want to attack statistics or numbers in any way, as to have proper picture it is not enough to know number of servers or shards, one has to know also workload that has to happen there, as well as access distributions, etc.
I could point out that average write transaction at FB is at around 5ms timing, so argument about transactional cost is not that important, as RPC times add up to that quite a bit, and multi-cluster dbms wouldn't reduce the RPC costs.
Pretty much everything he wrote about state of FB environment is very uneducated narrative.
Oh well, I guess general audience prefers something that has no basis rather to insights that are based on working today in that industry.
voltdb (Stonebraker's solution) is in-memory store, so are few other of all this new wave of solutions (e.g. you don't want active mongo dataset to fall out of memory, as well as hit any contention on r/w lock).
I didn't want to attack statistics or numbers in any way, as to have proper picture it is not enough to know number of servers or shards, one has to know also workload that has to happen there, as well as access distributions, etc.
I could point out that average write transaction at FB is at around 5ms timing, so argument about transactional cost is not that important, as RPC times add up to that quite a bit, and multi-cluster dbms wouldn't reduce the RPC costs.
Pretty much everything he wrote about state of FB environment is very uneducated narrative.
Oh well, I guess general audience prefers something that has no basis rather to insights that are based on working today in that industry.