[protosam]

> That is an assertion without any evidence.

This seems like a lack of knowledge issue. The problems with rqlite are inherit in it's design as I've already articulated. You can literally start reading jepsen analyses right now and understand it if you don't already: https://jepsen.io/analyses

[otoolep]

Can you be more specific?

"Evidence Dump Fallacy." This fallacy occurs when a person claims that a certain proposition is true but, instead of providing clear and specific evidence to support the claim, directs the questioner to a large amount of information, asserting that the evidence is contained within.

[protosam]

You realize that your product offers no transaction support due to the HTTP API right?

[otoolep]

Transactions -- or the lack thereof -- have nothing to do with the consistency guarantees offered by rqlite.

You may wish to read this:

https://github.com/wildarch/jepsen.rqlite/blob/main/doc/blog...

rqlite -- to the best of my knowledge and as a result of extensive testing -- offers strict linearizability due to its use of the Raft protocol. Each write request to rqlite is atomic because it's encapsulated in a single Raft log entry -- this is distinct from the other form of transactions offered by rqlite[1], but that second form of transaction functionality has zero effect on the guarantees offered by Raft and rqlite (they are completely different things, operating at different levels in the design). If you know otherwise I'd very much like to know precisely why and how.

[1] https://rqlite.io/docs/api/api/#transactions

[protosam]

I won't be following up further. I've shared all I have to share on this topic. On a personal level, I'm actually disappointed in how you take to critical feedback about your product and don't seem to be interested in understanding the problem domain you're developing for.

https://gist.github.com/protosam/35880f46ed3f3e80a4e2ec47e6b...