To add some context: every Jepsen test involves table creation. YugaByte DB's table-creation process was exceptionally fragile, which is what prompted tests specifically pushing on that behavior.
There is a world of difference between not having a common and necessary feature and not having feature nobody else has neither. If project tries to establish itself as a serious competitor in a given field, communication is crucial. “We don’t have it but we’re working on it and softwares you currently use probably doesn’t have it” is way different message than “we miss something you probably use”.
Ehm yeah. If it was groundbreaking. But there are 5+ other contenders in this field who are dealing with the same issues, and in some cases are fairing better. We are currently evaluating multiple NewSQL vendors, and it really does come down to the details making or breaking the case. I am not sure what potential NDAs I am on so I can't share details, but there is a sharp difference in one company and another claiming "Distributed Serializability". Cockroach for instance enforces a lot of stuff to maintain consistency, and as a result can be (or is) slower. But at least it's also predictable. In the end it's all trade-offs and I actually like the Yugabyte product a lot. I just wish they are more transparent about what choices they made and the impact of that
Thanks for your feedback! Not sure when you tried yugabyteDB, but our serializable isolation level and YSQL API (which is needed to exercise serializability) were in beta till a couple of days ago. That said, if you can share some feedback, that would help us out immensely. All kinds of feedback welcome - be it about the product or why you feel we are not transparent. Absolute transparency has always been our goal, your feedback will definitely help us improve.