On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> I don't think Jeff comes across as angry. He's simply pointing out that > ScyllaDB isn't a drop in > Agree, I take it back, it's wasn't due to this. > replacement for Cassandra. Saying that it is is very misleading. The > marketing material should really say something like "drop in replacement > for some workloads" or "aims to be a drop in replacement". As is, it > doesn't support everything, so it's not a drop in. > > When we need to describe what Scylla is in 140 characters or one liner, we use drop-in-replacement. When we talk about the details, we provide the full details as I did above. The code is open and we take the upstream-first approach and there is the status page to summarize it. If someone depends on LWT or UDF we don't have an immediate answer. We do have answers for the rest. The vast majority of users don't get to use these features and thus they can (and some did) seamlessly migrate. For a reference sanity check, see all the databases/tools who claim SQL ability, most of them don't comply to the ANSI standard. As you said, our desire is to be 100% compatible. Btw, going back to technology discussion, while there are lots of reasons to use C++, the only challenge is in features like UDF/triggers which relay on JVM based code execution. We are likely to use Lua for it initially, and later we'll integrate it with a JVM based solution. > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:34 PM Dor Laor <d...@scylladb.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2017-03-10 09:57 (-0800), Rakesh Kumar wrote: >> > Cassanda vs Scylla is a valid comparison because they both are >> compatible. Scylla is a drop-in replacement for Cassandra. >> >> No, they aren't, and no, it isn't >> >> >> Jeff is angry with us for some reason. I don't know why, it's natural >> that when >> a new opponent there are objections and the proof lies on us. >> We go through great deal of doing it and we don't just throw comments >> without backing. >> >> Scylla IS a drop in replacement for C*. We support the same CQL (from >> version 1.7 it's cql 3.3.1, protocol v4), the same SStable format (based on >> 2.1.8). In 1.7 release we support cql uploader >> from 3.x. We will support the SStable format of 3.x natively in 3 month >> time. Soon all of the feature set will be implemented. We always have been >> using this page (not 100% up to date, we'll update it this week): >> http://www.scylladb.com/technology/status/ >> >> We add a jmx-proxy daemon in java in order to make the transition as >> smooth as possible. Almost all the nodetool commands just work, for sure >> all the important ones. >> Btw: we have a RESTapi and Prometheus formats, much better than the hairy >> jmx one. >> >> Spark, Kairosdb, Presto and probably Titan (we add Thrift just for legacy >> users and we don't intend >> to decommission an api). >> >> Regarding benchmarks, if someone finds a flaw in them, we'll do the best >> to fix it. >> Let's ignore them and just here what our users have to say: >> http://www.scylladb.com/users/ >> >> >>
