> Another implication of having just one single server: there is only one place for network requests to go.

> In the dream SQLite plus LiteFS world, you have all the advantages of SQLite and all the advantages of a fully replicated multi-writer database setup. Any individual server can go down without causing any downtime for the application as a whole, and every user has a full copy of the application and all its data, running extremely close to them.

These are some of the problems I’m working on solving with Litebase (alpha), which runs on SQLite and distributed storage. Most SQLite solutions rely on replicating data between nodes, but I’m taking a simpler approach by using distributed storage for durability, availability, and replication, combined with a lightweight consensus system between primary and replica nodes.

https://litebase.com

I’m working on getting a public alpha ready, but you can check out the project so far. I’ll create a thread on Hacker News once things are ready.

▲

nop_slide 5 days ago | parent [-]

Neat! From a high level what's the difference between litebase and Turso?

▲

tlaverdure 5 days ago | parent [-]

A lot of similarities but I believe Turso replicates data between nodes.

Litebase writes data to a tiered storage system (local, network, and object) for easier distribution. Using SQLite's VFS API I've also implemented a different type of storage that allows the primary to write data without full consensus with replicas. It's kind of like a multi-versioned log structured merge tree.

	▲	nop_slide 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Awesome, going to follow along the development!