News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by JulianWasTaken on Friday February 05, 2016 @01:16AM (#11039862)
This is a very odd thread.

I'm in no way involved in influx, we're just evaluating it, but this entire thread reads like complete FUD at the moment, so it's odd that you're calling out a maintainer or whoever pauldix is for "disappearing".

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by kev009 on Friday February 05, 2016 @02:22AM (#11040087)
If you're just now evaluating it, you might not realize the history behind the project. It's more backlash than FUD.. infrastructure people don't like to be jerked around by marketing tactics any more than we already are. At various times each of the storage engines was promoted as the bee's knees LevelDB -> BoltDB -> bz1 -> tsm1. That kind of fumbling speaks for itself. It's strange for a high profile investment (including YC). Founded/funded around the same time contrast historically to FoundationDB.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by misframer on Friday February 05, 2016 @09:21AM (#11041534)
> Founded/funded around the same time contrast historically to FoundationDB.

FoundationDB was in stealth mode for at least three years before they launched their closed Alpha release, so perhaps this isn't a fair comparison.

(I was an intern at FoundationDB during summer 2012.)

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by monkpit on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:08AM (#11042289)
At the time I wrote the comment, there were direct questions left unanswered for 6 hours, while replies were given to other less-interesting comments in the meantime - that to me looks like someone ignoring something. He came back, that's great!