Apache Ignite vs. Hazelcast: Data Consistency Comparison

[jsjunk...@gmail.com]

Looking at Apache Ignite's page about comparison against Hazelcast regarding Data Consistency and it states

Hazelcast supports atomic and transactional consistency only on PARTITIONED caches. Data stored in REPLICATED caches does not have any transactional guarantees at all.

Is this true? I honestly don't understand the reference here to REPLICATED. Are they referring to backups? If so, looking at the code, backups are indeed part of transactions, right?

[Enes Akar]

I guess they mean our ReplicatedMap implementation with REPLICATED caches. 

In initial replicated map design, it is weakly consistent, we gave priority to its performance.   

http://docs.hazelcast.org/docs/3.5/manual/html-single/hazelcast-documentation.html#replicated-map

Most hazelcast usage scenarios includes Hazelcast IMap (and JCache also) which is partitioned and has consistency guarantees.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hazelcast" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hazelcast+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to haze...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hazelcast.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hazelcast/f45060e9-7d09-415d-801a-0cdfae33fe41%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Haddock]

I'm not really competent to answer the question, but it seems to me that those comparisons on the Ignite homepage only compare its areas of strengths with other systems. This way Ignite looks strong as the strong points of other systems are not included in the comparison. This seems obvious to me when looking at the comparison between Ignite and Coherence. Coherence is a big monster with tons of features almost no other distributed shared-memory system has (and thus also has a really nice little license fee). To me it is a bit disappointing that an Apache project in it's presentation is that much business/marketing driven and not developer driven as Apache projects mostly are.

-- Haddock

[jsjunk...@gmail.com]

Enes, thanks for your reply and explanation. I was not aware of the ReplicatedMap structure.

[jsjunk...@gmail.com]

Regardless of how you feel about the comparison, it does bring good points that may serve as a way to encourage further development. Competition (even in the open source space) is always welcomed and encourages advancement of technology.

In particular I agree that SOME (emphasis here) of the good features that Hazelcast provides over the competition are only available after you pay for them. Having said that, Hazelcast is not stopping anyone from developing those same features in an open source manner (I hope).