No, FATE is for ensuring all steps of an action get completed, not atomicity. I think of FATE as system level eventual consistency.
For example, when we create a table, we put in !METADATA entries and put some records in Zookeeper. If the master dies midway through, we're then left with a table in a half-state that must be manually cleaned up. FATE provides a mechanism for ensuring that all parts of a multi-phase system process get completed, but it doesn't do anything for ensuring that the entirety of a complex operation is completed before it gets noticed. However, it is possible to jimmy it into the current system via combination of custom iterators and embedded transaction IDs in the Key. But we currently provide nothing of the sort. John On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM, David Medinets <[email protected]>wrote: > I went to a talk about Foundation DB the other day. They said that > Foundation DB was the only NoSQL tool with transactions. But then I > thought, does FATE serve as a transaction boundary ... at least for > Mutations? >
