I love all these "benchmarks" of "NoSQL" databases running on single nodes. Plus you don't name the competitors or any configuration data so... this is really marketing not engineering.
Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that Provider #1 is MongoHQ ("Replica Set: Small") and Provider #2 is MongoLab ("Mini"). MongoHQ doesn't show a "Replica Set: Small" anymore, though, on their pricing page - only Large.
Configuration data and multiple nodes would be nice.
What type of configuration data are you looking for? The tests used the $150/month price point offering on each DBaaS, the configuration options are built into the service.
Regarding NoSQL and "single node" vs. "multi node" -- NoSQL isn't just about scale out systems, it is about mapping the proper type of data store to the data model. If you have a complex relational schema you should use a SQL database. If you need a simple to use document or object store the NoSQL solutions are often easier to code against.
Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place.
Ironic and invalid generalization. When the tradeoffs are acceptable or preferable (e.g. data persistence is not vital and your application can get better performance out of a database that can "lose data") it makes sense.
Whether it's relevant to the article or not, this is simply false and not constructive at all.
Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place.