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/
