GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant object store

Re:GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant o... by ymse on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @06:43PM (#10786320)

Why should I choose this over Ceph RADOS? [0][1]

0: Reliable Autonomic Distributed Object Store

1: http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/api/librados-intro/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant o... by TheMagicHorsey on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @06:52PM (#10786340)

It's written in Go and nicer to hack on, I suspect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant o... by techdragon on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @08:14PM (#10786548)

Being written in Go is hardly some kind of magic advantage. I'd go with Ceph myself because I know exactly where I stand with it. It's also got commercial support which comes in handy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant o... by ctlaltdefeat on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @08:22PM (#10786568)

Ceph doesn't seem to support (serializable) transactions (correct if wrong), which is kind of the whole point. In fact, how does it differentiate itself from Apache Cassandra etc? By storing arbitrary objects?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GoshawkDB: A distributed, transactional, fault-tolerant o... by msackman on Thursday December 24, 2015 @03:37AM (#10787570)

Hi, I'm the author of GoshawkDB.

I'm no Cassandra expert, but I'm certainly under the impression that Cassandra does not offer full transactions - lightweight txns only that are atomic only for a single row.

[ Parent | on HN ]