Scylla Reviews

Scylla is used as a cache. Once the data is ingested into the product during the initial load, a version of it is stored in Scylla DB, and this is then used by the other transformation services to query and make updates during ongoing loads. That is, it is being queried by other services to make the updates whenever deletes occur.

It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure.

Data export, along with how we can purchase the data periodically, needs to be improved so that the storage is within control. Then, we could optimize it even better.

This is not a very old product, and it's seven or eight months old.

We would like to leverage it on the public cloud, but due to some limitations at the moment, it's on the cloud but using IAS. We have virtual machines, and there, we have created the cluster.

It's pretty much stable. We have been in production for six months now, and I haven't seen it go down. We have had a few instances where one or two of the nodes have gone down, but the cluster has been stable.

Scalability in performance is good. We can add more nodes and have more scalability. We have about 200 people using this solution.

Support and the availability of support need improvement. I would give them a six out of ten.

Neutral

The architecture team did some tests and performance benchmarking, and they found out that in comparison to that for other tools almost one eighth or one tenth of the infrastructure was required for Scylla and that the performance was the same.

This is built on using C++, and it's very lightweight, whereas the others were using too much infrastructure. These are some of the reasons why Scylla was chosen.

I believe that there is a yearly licensing cost and that it's expensive.

The architecture team evaluated MongoDB and Cassandra.

Overall, I would give Scylla a seven out of ten for our use case.