The raw data in the spreadsheet, which I have continued to update and is now up to 15 databases with 30 characteristics each, is indeed applicable to both people who want to pick up a database and use it in their monitoring stack, or who want to use a time series database for another purpose.

Some of the newer additions like Warp10 and Akumuli for example have comments about being great choices for sensor applications and those who need highly performant local time series storage written in C++.

That's a good point about the compression. I bundled that all in the row 'bytes per point after compression' which gives the end result for each database but I haven't noted which ones actually compress. However, there is 1 database that uses lossy compression so that is noted. That's all in row 11 currently.

Someone else also raised the clustering question and I added a row for 'dynamic cluster management' to address the question of whether you could just horizontally scale by adding a node without bringing the system down.

The performance numbers are a big problem regardless of how they are calculated. Firstly, I'd like to address the issue of whether having them or not is important. I believe it's incredibly important to have some kind of idea up front before investing time trying out a database. If we agree that performance numbers are essential, especially considering the database list is up to 15 and growing and we need some kind of method to reduce the number to trial, then we're onto the next problem. Benchmarking 15 databases in a uniform way as a science experiment is about 7 master thesis worth of work (there are actually several on the topic of benchmarking a few of those databases together that are interesting reads). To put it plainly such a benchmark won't ever happen and if if ever does someone would find a way to undermine it for their use case and setup. Therefore the usefulness of the numbers in the list is more a practical ballpark estimate as outlined in the blog.

We did however benchmark DalmatinerDB and released easy to re-create results, the exact box hardware, test method, code and a little graph. I used the same mechanism to benchmark InfluxDB and got reasonably close to the figures they released.

The version of each database is in row 29. It probably wasn't when you first saw the sheet but I added it soon after along with a maturity field.

Dataloop is a SaaS company of which I'm a co-founder and we needed a database a few years ago to build our SaaS monitoring product. None of the things that existed at the time were all that appealing so we picked up an already open sourced project (DalmatinerDB) and have put about 5 people working for a year improving it under the direction of Heinz (the original author) and contributed it all back.

The reason to contribute it back wasn't completely altruistic. I'm personally interested in time series databases, as a co-founder I need to go on the road and talk at conferences, and chatting about DalmatinerDB seemed like a good way to get my slides up and a big 'we are hiring' one at the end. Also, hiring Erlang devs is hard. The more community contributors we have the bigger the potential hiring pool of known good people.

For the ZFS question there's the choice of SmartOS (which is what Heinz built it on) or Linux. Ubuntu 16.04 has been out for several months and supports native ZFS. Dataloop runs DalmatinerDB on ZFS on Ubuntu. Heinz and several of his customers running Project Fifo (which DalmatinerDB came out of) usually run it on SmartOS. I'm guessing far more people would be interested in running it on Linux than SmartOS. The database is intrinsically linked to the filesystem for proper running. It relies on the way the compression works to achieve 1 byte per data point storage volume. As well as the way the filesystem makes atomic writes. You can run DalmatinerDB without ZFS but you'd quickly run out of disk space and your data integrity wouldn't be as well known.

The bit I do agree with fully is the marketing sizing questions.. it's all a gamble based on opinion. We can probably agree it's a huge area for growth right now with more people moving to cloud and spinning up far more infrastructure than ever before. All I personally know, being a SysAdmin most of my career, is that things are getting more complex and open source isn't scaling very well, or when it does you still need a team to manage it. If you had asked big companies 10 years ago who would want to outsource their email hosting I think you'd get a much different answer to today. The trend long term is towards SaaS and I believe the 90% of companies who today are using open source will see the same shift. Will I get the amateurs? Probably never, but then the 90% market numbers come from our own research:

https://blog.dataloop.io/2014/01/30/what-we-learnt-talking-t...

And then validated time and time again by others:

https://kartar.net/2015/08/monitoring-survey-2015---tools/

I honestly don't think that even if the mega combo of Prometheus / DalmatinerDB / Grafana was polished today it would eat into either Dataloops or Datadogs business. Some people want to run their own, others want to buy SaaS. Over time we're going to see the shift to SaaS that has happened with most other products and by having a foot in the door with DalmatinerDB, Dataloop should hopefully create some good-will and credibility from the people who want to run a monitoring stack themselves. At least then if they move on into an environment where they do want to buy SaaS hosted monitoring we're going in warm with a good reputation.