Is TiKV an alternative?

Short overview and maybe good to know it's becoming part of the CNCF: https//www.cncf.io/blog/2018/08/28/cncf-to-host-tikv-in-the-sandbox/

Haven't worked with it myself yet, but maybe others can share their experience?

There have also been some HN threads in the past, about TiDB at least.

TiDB developer here. Yes, I think TiKV is an alternative to FDB. Compare to FDB Record Layer, TiKV aims to provide a more atomic primitive, just including Get/Set/Transaction in key-value layer, so users can build customized distributed system around it. The main differences between TiKV/TiDB and FDB are:

1. TiKV uses Multi-Raft architecture, I think Raft provides more HA.

2. TiKV's transaction model is inspired by Google Percolator, it's a classical optimistic 2PC transaction model with MVCC support. I'm not a expert of FDB, but I think different transaction models fit for different application scenarios, TiKV's transaction model is good when your workload is mainly small transactions and with a low conflict rate.

3. TiDB is a full-featured SQL layer on top of TiKV, aims to provide a MySQL compatible solution, you know, most of the TiDB users are migrated from the MySQL, so the focus of TiDB will be how to be compatible with these legacy MySQL-based applications. For example, how to read MySQL binlog and then replay on TiDB in real time, let TiDB become a MySQL active replica, or how to support complex SQL queries like distributed join or groupby, you know, building a full-featured SQL optimizer is a huge project.

There are some case studies:

https://pingcap.com/success-stories/

https://pingcap.com/success-stories/tidb-in-meituan-dianping...

There are some quick-start documents you can start with:

https://pingcap.com/docs/op-guide/docker-compose/

https://pingcap.com/docs/v2.0/op-guide/migration/#migrate-da...

For kubernetes unless you’re past a couple of million keys it’s unlikely etcd is the issue, and other things would fall over first. However, if you’re at those levels it might be worth it to use something else.

I’m not sure foundation would be able to do the full consistent list required in the current model though (someone above mentioned full consistent table scans being not possible in FDB). In etcd and cockroach you can leverage MVCC and get a consistent scan over older history. But if FDB has that it’s pretty close (I looked into this before FDB was acquired the first time).

Edit: unlikely = in practice I haven’t seen anything except large range lock contention (which is why we added chunking to the api)

If you’re referring to my comment, by “not possible”, I meant “subject to the 5s transaction duration limit.” etcd and ZK could be implemented on top of FDB.

DynamoDB with strong consistency turned on works pretty nicely for us.