It's been repeatedly discussed (ad nauseam?) - I recommend checking out hnsearch.com.

I dislike MongoDB, but if I had to try to summarize objectively:

1) It is marketed very heavily, including to use cases to which it is poorly suited

2) It can be very complicated to run in production, I think because it actually wasn't originally designed to be distributed.

3) It has a history of data loss. I think this is because it generally favors performance over reliability, combined with #1 and #2

Because it's pure snake oil. If you got an old IMS hacker from the 1970s he would be appalled at just how primitive it is, but to its cult-like followers it is cutting edge tech and they won't shut up about it.

I have run it in production, thrown over the fence by some dumb devs who believed the lies that "you don't need a DBA". Well you need a full time team and a lot of hardware, and that's comparing it to Oracle.

MongoDB has been marketed as something it is not ,that's why.

Would you care to provide a brief rundown on this? I'm not doubting you. I'm simply ignorant.

What about other NoSQL solutions?

MongoDB is a clever wrapper to a mmap()'d hash table of linked lists of BSON documents that's naive as anything but fast as long as everything's always in memory. (Well, "fast" is a strong word where Mongo is concerned. "not horribly slow".)

MOST other NoSQL solutions actually do things like treat their index differently than their bulk data so that it isn't accidentally swapped out, ruining performance. Many also do important things like supplying durable writes. (Your data may not be consistent at any one given moment, but it'll get there.)