[hendzen]

You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders).

One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny.

If MongoDB is heading along the path of MySQL, that's a pretty good path to be on considering that MySQL is used as the store of record at Facebook, Twitter and some parts of Google.

[takeda]

> You're comparing ISAM/MySAM (storage engine) to the MongoDB replication protocol. As a more relevant parallel MongoDB also replaced its original storage engine with one acquired from WiredTiger (BerkeleyDB founders).

My bad, MMAPv1 vs WiredTiger although I think it was obvious what I meant.

> One big difference from a corporate strategy perspective is that MySQL let the replacement storage engine (InnoDB) fall in to the hands of Oracle. MongoDB was smart enough to make sure that they were the acquirer, which puts them in control of their own destiny.

Not sure if that's relevant though, since whole MySQL became property of Oracle (after they acquired Sun).

[hendzen]

Yes... its very relevant... If MySQL had acquired InnoDB instead of Oracle there is a good chance they would still exist as an independent entity. That's what I meant by MongoDB's acquisition of WT putting them in control of their own destiny.

[SEJeff]

And virtually 100% of youtube, if we're talking web scale.