120,000 writes per second is accurate, talking about actual durable storage (disk) writes. But it's only 3,330 transactions, which should be the number that a user cares about.
I don't have proper data and I'm a bit rusty, but I feel like Cassandra could blow that away if you set similar consistency requirements on the client side (QUORUM on read, same for write?). Am I understanding this correctly, or does Fauna/Calvin give you something functionally better than what C* can do?
A more apples-to-apples comparison with Cassandra would be FaunaDB transactions and Cassandra's atomic batch mutations, or its PAXOS-based lightweight transactions as opposed to single-cell writes tested in most Cassandra benchmarks.
YMMV, but we've found the performance of Cassandra writing out similar-sized multi-row atomic batches at QUORUM to be similar in this hardware configuration.
FaunaDB transactions are quite a bit more powerful, as they can span multiple keys, use conditionals and read-modify-write logic, and still resolve with serializable semantics.
That makes a lot more sense then. It's still a misleading statement to say "writes" vs "transactions" since you could (potentially) make fewer writes and support more transactions. The ratio between the two is a measure of efficiency, but only transactions matter to end-users.
You're right that one number trades off another. I'm not sure that only transactions matters, though.
Tracking logical writes makes the test comparable to tests of key-value stores that can only update one key at time, which is pretty much every other distributed database.
120,000 writes per second is accurate, talking about actual durable storage (disk) writes. But it's only 3,330 transactions, which should be the number that a user cares about.
I don't have proper data and I'm a bit rusty, but I feel like Cassandra could blow that away if you set similar consistency requirements on the client side (QUORUM on read, same for write?). Am I understanding this correctly, or does Fauna/Calvin give you something functionally better than what C* can do?