dqlite VS chiselstore

If you're interested in this, here are some related projects that all take slightly different approaches:

- LiteSync directly competes with Marmot and supports DDL sync, but is closed source commercial (similar to SQLite EE): https://litesync.io

- dqlite is Canonical's distributed SQLite that depends on c-raft and kernel-level async I/O: https://dqlite.io

- cr-sqlite is a Rust-based loadable extension that adds CRDT changeset generation and reconciliation to SQLite: https://github.com/vlcn-io/cr-sqlite

Slightly related but not really (no multi writer, no C-level SQLite API or other restrictions):

- comdb2 (Bloombergs multi-homed RDMS using SQLite as the frontend)

- rqlite: RDMS with HTTP API and SQLite as the storage engine, used for replication and strong consistency (does not scale writes)

- litestream/LiteFS: disaster recovery replication

- liteserver: active read-only replication (predecessor of LiteSync)

I'd be curious for a similar tuning with Dqlite: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

Anyone knows how the DB this is about, https://rqlite.io/, compares with https://dqlite.io/ by Canonical (both seem to be distributed versions of sqlite)?

For folks' context, the new tool that's being discussed in the thread mentioned by the parent here is litefs [0], as well as which you can also look at rqlite [1] and dqlite [2], which all provide different trade-offs (e.g. rqlite is 'more strongly consistent' than litefs).

[0]: https://github.com/superfly/litefs

[1]: https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite

[2]: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

I presume you're familiar with https://github.com/canonical/dqlite (made by my employer) and https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite (unrelated)? How will mvsqlite compare to those?

Check out dqlite, it's sqlite but with a raft consensus to distribute changes through a log: https://dqlite.io/ You can link it in as a library too, it sounds like exactly what you want.

it? What's the big deal about not fitting well with SQLx? This isn't a requirement for such a library to be successful. What other problems is it allegedly suffering from?

[1] https://github.com/chiselstrike/chiselstore

I've looked at the https://github.com/chiselstrike/chiselstore/blob/main/proto/... - and calling the service "RPC" is not great if this is going to be bundled with other gRPC services - why not call it "chiselStore" or something more concrete?

on a 2nd note, each method should have it's own Request Response, and ideally they should be suffixed same way. Returning same proto for multiple methods might break future compatibility - e.g. what if AppendEntries needs to return somehing else than Void? - ideally you make it from the start to return an empty AppendEntriesResponse, and then you can extend that proto.

https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#u...