In case SQLite is not enough and you need redundant servers or clustering, there's also database servers that use SQLite as storage engine: http://rqlite.com/https://dqlite.io/
So you run an app with sqlite on one server and sync to sqlite on another server? What would be the benefit to using a separate db server like in the 'neo-serveless' setup?
No, in this case you always have to use rqlite/dqlite because they manage the network synchronization. They use SQLite as storage engine (one SQLite database per server instance).
I understand that in those cases rqlite/dqlite is used. But that it just a technical detail. My point is that I am running two servers: one with the app and Xqlite and another one with Xqlite.
In case of a neo-serveless setup, I also have two servers: one with the app, the other one with the db server.
So what are the benefits of the Xqlite setup? I looked into that before and for one thing, Xqlite is slower (obviously) then just sqlite. So speed is not a key benefit. I also will have to manage both servers myself.
At least for a seperate db server I have the benefit that I can buy that as a service, incl management, backups and such.
Not the author, or knowing of all the technical details... simplistic replication structure and redundancy/failover without an expensive or more complex RDBMS solution while still self-hosting the service.
There are still a lot of instances where you cannot use a cloud provider for your app or database.
To be honest, I'd probably lean more towards a nosql database that has in the box, relatively easy replication strategy, though that might mean 3+ db servers for good performance. (RethinkDB, MongoDB, Cassandra/ScyllaDB, Cockroach). Just depends on the budget and resources.
I'd probably reach for Scylla wherever I would consider Cassandra (or similar), though the similar bigtable/columnstore-like services in most cloud hosts is generally still going to be easier.
