FoundationDB was the proto-CockroachDB (or rather, CockroachDB is essentially a re-attempt at building FoundationDB). It was an early attempt at building a NewSQL database. (NewSQL per se, i.e. not counting parallel databases from the pre-NoSQL age, like Gamma [1], Volcano [2] and Grace [3], which share many of the same design principles.)

FoundationDB was acquhired by Apple, but its failure is generally attributed to a poorly-performing SQL layer: https://www.voltdb.com/blog/2015/04/01/foundationdbs-lesson-...

[1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/paralleldb/ieee90....

[2] https://paperhub.s3.amazonaws.com/dace52a42c07f7f8348b08dc2b...

[3] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7f4/e4e6166dc683e7fa7d5b9e...

No, FoundationDB which was posting some VERY impressive numbers before being acquired by Apple in March 2015.

Here they were doing 15M writes/s on 32 16-core servers, at a rate of 30,000 writes/s/core: http://web.archive.org/web/20150427041746/http://blog.founda...

FaunaDB managed 120,000 writes per second on 15 machines. https://fauna.com/blog/distributed-acid-transaction-performa...

(Yes, not equivalent benchmarks, but that's still a 50x difference in magnitude.)

Down voted for asking a question? The system is definitely broke in such instances.

You worded the question in a way suggested you thought the previous commenter was wrong. That reads like either being a FaunaFB fanboy or not taking time to learn about Foundation, both of which will reliably attract downvotes. Had you worded it differently I doubt you'd be getting downvoted.

So essentially the HN commenting UX is one of walking on egg shells.

I mean, a two-second Google could haven't shown you what FoundationDB was.