Well, many of us are ready today for the new era, writing software differently: not optimizing for memory, throwing out the window ACID databases in favor of quickly hacked together in-memory ones, not knowing any disk-based algorithms and data structures, etc.
But ComodoHacker's comment, made me think yet again, why was ACID compliance ever a issue?
I was reliving some nostalgia at the weekend, explaining to a friend how I got excited Microsoft Transaction Service came bundled with NT.
That was my "free" ACID transactions.
It as cross platform, then, too. (or at least multi arch, and advertised to play nice with things like IBM CICS, which may have been much of the point of the bundling, to win deals, even in check box tallies)
MTS is one of the few OS level dependencies SQLServer has. But i think the cross platform origin I recall, was born out when SQLServer/Linux appeared.
I have all this time been confused.
I get it, if you don't need ACID, and have other design reasons, go ahead.
But, well I just always saw it as a problem solved, or plug and play solvable, thanks to MTS. Getting a book on MTS is hat convinced me NT was serious and our business should take heed. If you're a small shop, have margins, can work with fat servers - or as we did, fundamentally scale through transaction routing in the first place - NT (plus the variations of services for Unix now for Linux) can be a happy place.
Incidentally, I believe the middleware - driver that Intel is shipping with Optane, is the work of ScameMP.
we've used their product very happily - it may be a good fit especially if you are staging oversize db's you intend to shard, but need them up behind a connection while you test, which was our need.
N.B. Scale MP has a free tier which may also fit your needs.
Not meaning to shill, but I never know why I don't hear of them more, our experience was absolutely satisfying.
edit: typos; "free"/free
edit: removed "very" from "may be a very good fit" about ScaleMP - felt so for us, but can't say why anything that works to meet specific need is qualitatively better when doing the job is a binary y/n..
and to add, now if products like Optane eliminate the performance cost discarding ACID transaction compliance has been justified by, then will that not upset a few conceptual applecarts? I mean, I think some very loose and fast argument has been given, surrounding non ACID compliance and data and databases generally, over recent years, and certainly the performance cost trade off arguments has appeared to me to mask logic elsewhere that needs attention.
/s