Jepsen does find stuff with everything. Thus you have to know what is being discussed is serious and blatantly bad, or just the usual "wow distributed is hard".
Which is why his papers are so great.
But the MongoDB one was "wow this is bad".
Which is why his papers are so great.
But the MongoDB one was "wow this is bad".
I assume you have an example of one that wasn't ?
Cassandra doesn't do that, consistency level is fundamental to the documentation and user guide. That is AWFUL.
"Curiously, MongoDB omitted any mention of these findings in their MongoDB and Jepsen page. Instead, that page discusses only passing results, makes no mention of read or write concern, buries the actual report in a footnote, and goes on to claim:
MongoDB offers among the strongest data consistency, correctness, and safety guarantees of any database available today.That is fraud. That is clownshow. Enjoy your increasing revenue.
And single node is a perfectly fine default for most use cases.
After all Cassandra's default consistency level is 1.
Hence my point there is no difference in defaults between MongoDB and Cassandra.
Certainly, not all Jepsen reports are all that bad, and tbh I'm at leaast as interested in the way the vendors respond (some of which have been terrible).