Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is faster than Redis

Re:Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is fas... by dangoodmanUT on Monday March 17, 2025 @12:07PM (#43389965)

I didn't necessarily mean exactly fsync. I guess I'll ask: Is it actually flushed to persistent disk in 600ns such that if the node crashes, the data can always be read again? Or does that not fully flush?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is fas... by mehrant on Monday March 17, 2025 @12:17PM (#43390078)

yes, in that case data can potentially be lost. 30 sec in a worse case scenario without HA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is fas... by dangoodmanUT on Monday March 17, 2025 @12:38PM (#43390320)

So it's not actually persistence then.

That's extremely deceptive, and (IANAL) I think false advertisement. I'd clarify it.

That's also not HA, that's durability. Concerning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is fas... by pclmulqdq on Monday March 17, 2025 @07:19PM (#43393776)

I have a product to sell you with a postgres interface but p99 write latency of 100 nanoseconds. It's postgres but our driver says "write done" before a write completes. It's revolutionary!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: A bi-directional, persisted KV store that is fas... by gkbrk on Monday March 17, 2025 @12:36PM (#43390302)

There's a tiny 50,000,000x difference between the now admitted 30 seconds and the previously claimed 600 nanoseconds.

[ Parent | on HN ]