DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. OrigoDB vs. Percona Server for MongoDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. OrigoDB vs. Percona Server for MongoDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

A distributed reliable key-value store

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

A drop-in replacement for MongoDB Community Edition with enterprise-grade features.

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	7.05
Rank	#53	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.50
Rank	#250	Overall
	#39	Document stores

Website

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

origodb.com

www.percona.com/mongodb/software/percona-server-for-mongodb

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

origodb.com/docs

docs.percona.com/percona-distribution-for-mongodb

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Robert Friberg et al

Percona

Initial release

2016

2009

under the name LiveDB

2015

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

3.4.10-2.10, November 2017

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GPL Version 2

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

proprietary protocol using JSON

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Clojure
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Groovy
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Smalltalk

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

via In-Memory Engine

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Role based authorization

Access rights for users and roles

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

ETCD guidelines: RBI seeks to balance rupee stability, competitiveness | Policy Circle
8 April 2024, Policy Circle

Public preview: AKS cluster control plane metrics in managed Prometheus
12 February 2024, Microsoft

Is Your etcd an Open Door for Cyber Attacks? How to Secure Your Kubernetes Clusters & Nodes
8 November 2023, Information Security Newspaper

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

6 Cool Kubernetes Operators and How to Use Them
22 January 2024, hackernoon.com

provided by Google News

Percona launches management system aimed at open-source databases
17 May 2022, The Register

Is database-as-a-service in Percona’s future?
23 May 2022, VentureBeat

FerretDB goes GA: Gives you MongoDB, without the MongoDB...
15 May 2023, The Stack

The essential guide to MongoDB security
2 February 2017, InfoWorld

Supercharge your Amazon RDS for MySQL deployment with ProxySQL and Percona Monitoring and Management
12 October 2018, AWS Blog

provided by Google News

Share this page