So a guy who is an expert in Clustrix (and knows how to setup, tune, etc) compares it against some other technology that he does not know (and does not know how to setup, tune, etc) and comes to the surprising realization that his technology is better?
Where have I seen this before? Oh right.. every time I see "Technology A vs Technology B" comparisons.
Naturally his results are in his favor, otherwise he would not have posted them.
In fairness, you don't have to tune MongDB poorly (deliberately or otherwise) to get poor performance with a workload involving substantial numbers of writes; it's well-documented that there is a global lock (http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/How+does+concurrency+wor...) that prevents reads during write operations.
That said, there are certainly nosql systems with better scaling and concurrency stories* than mongodb out there that he could have benchmarked against. :)
Comments
So a guy who is an expert in Clustrix (and knows how to setup, tune, etc) compares it against some other technology that he does not know (and does not know how to setup, tune, etc) and comes to the surprising realization that his technology is better?
Where have I seen this before? Oh right.. every time I see "Technology A vs Technology B" comparisons.
Naturally his results are in his favor, otherwise he would not have posted them.
In fairness, you don't have to tune MongDB poorly (deliberately or otherwise) to get poor performance with a workload involving substantial numbers of writes; it's well-documented that there is a global lock (http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/How+does+concurrency+wor...) that prevents reads during write operations.
That said, there are certainly nosql systems with better scaling and concurrency stories* than mongodb out there that he could have benchmarked against. :)
*I'm a cassandra committer
Just a point of clarification, but it is a per-server lock, not a global lock across the whole database.