http://www.korokithakis.net/node/116 http://www.korokithakis.net/node/119
I would love to answer questions if I could figure out how to easily see my replies on HN :/
Are you experiencing data loss with 1.4.0 ?
Reasons (from my understanding) that you had a bad experience:
1. You used a development, unstable version of software in production.
2. 32 bit Mongo cannot store more than 2GB of data, this is a very public, known admission.
1. This is true (there was no warning that I saw when I was downloading it, although one was added later, or maybe I didn't notice it). However, I upgraded to the stable version when it came out to give MongoDB a second chance, because it sounds very good in theory, and I had the same (if not bigger) problems.
2. I hadn't known about it, and, no matter how pubilc it is, the server could just refuse to store more data. Silently corrupting two documents for every document inserted is inexcusable, even if your database was forged in the pits of hell.
I think your point about the poster child thing is true. While I meant my post as a sort of "MongoDB didn't look too production-ready to me, but I hope it gets there eventually", people became really polarized and took it either as "this guy is right, MongoDB sucks" or "this guy is an idiot, silently corrupting data is perfectly acceptable if there's a notice on the website"...
* The corruption of data might be excused in the development branch.
* The silent corruption of the data when the server goes past its limit for a 32-bit DB cannot be excused, since the server could die, at the very least.
* The corruption of data due to the process being killed because the connection dropped wasn't MongoDB's fault.
* Requiring 9 GB of RAM for 5 indexes doesn't sit very well with me...
* Silently corrupting data for me to find out days later is not something a stable, unstable or toy database should do...