Well, don't trust a benchmark that you haven't faked yourself they say.
I was just trying to point out that MongoDB is too easy a target here. The problems it has under high load are fairly well-known, at least to anyone who tried to benchmark it outside of their MacBooks. Just bulk-load a couple million records and watch it tip over if you don't believe me - I'm not making it up and neither is Sergei.
However if Clustrix wants to impress with benchmarks then they should pick an equal opponent. MongoDB is not exactly relevant for companies that consider the calibre (and cost!) of Clustrix.
I am a Mongo fan in some respects, but I agree that every benchmarking I do with any significant data involves the painfully slow bulk writes to get it started -- not a good first impression. Can some Mongo people help explain this?
Comments
Well, don't trust a benchmark that you haven't faked yourself they say.
I was just trying to point out that MongoDB is too easy a target here. The problems it has under high load are fairly well-known, at least to anyone who tried to benchmark it outside of their MacBooks. Just bulk-load a couple million records and watch it tip over if you don't believe me - I'm not making it up and neither is Sergei.
However if Clustrix wants to impress with benchmarks then they should pick an equal opponent. MongoDB is not exactly relevant for companies that consider the calibre (and cost!) of Clustrix.
I am a Mongo fan in some respects, but I agree that every benchmarking I do with any significant data involves the painfully slow bulk writes to get it started -- not a good first impression. Can some Mongo people help explain this?