Why should anyone believe that? I mean it might be true, I don't know. But if such a report turns out many fundamental issues it doesn't quite sound plausible that a redesign would suddenly not have any issues anymore. It might have fewer issues, it likely will have different issues as well though.

▲

rat9988 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because this is why companies pay for jepsen tests. Not because they enjoy to be destroyed in jepsen report, but to fix the issues.

▲

cwillu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is like paying for a pentest of a treehouse, and claiming that this implies the updated treehouse with a working padlock instead of a novelty lock is in the same league as a bank or a data center.

It makes mongodb from the report a decade ago look good.

▲

rat9988 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying it is proof it is done. But most likely they are working on it

	▲	cwillu a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There's no prize for participation, and they very clearly didn't do even the most rudimentary testing before paying for an in-depth third party analysis. I'd say that this reflects a profoundly childish approach to software, but that is unfair to children: I remember how much testing I did of my crappy game before I submitted it to STFormat when I was 12.
	▲	jeremyjh 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They clearly aren’t the right team to be working on it. It’s best if someone else gives it a go.

▲

fabian2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most Jepsen tests leave me with the impression "databases are damn complicated and difficult to get right". My thoughts with this particular report are "I'll never ever touch this DB if I can help it".

▲

nikez96 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]