a
> Date: Monday, 23 August 2021 at 06:46
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 2021, at 7:25 PM, Miles Garnsey
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The problem is that today there’s no way t
I’ll move this to a vote in a day or so, assuming no further discussion.
From: Jeff Jirsa
Date: Monday, 23 August 2021 at 06:46
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
> On Aug 22, 2021, at 7:25 PM, Miles Garnsey wrote:
>
>
>>
Jeff, Benedict, we’ve taken your thoughts on this on board and will probably
plan to repair in between scaling. The point about speculative retry did get me
thinking. Many thanks for the tip and the explanation!
> On 23 Aug 2021, at 3:46 pm, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 22, 2021, at
> On Aug 22, 2021, at 7:25 PM, Miles Garnsey wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The problem is that today there’s no way to reliably exclude the new DC from
>> serving reads, that I know of? If you can, then yes you would only need to
>> ensure repair were run prior to activating reads from this DC.
>
>
to safer
> setups.
>
> From: Miles Garnsey
> Date: Friday, 20 August 2021 at 12:51
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
> Many thanks for this detailed response Benedict. I look forward to seeing the
> forthcoming p
re tolerance than read failure tolerance (for
> instance). Today we support only the most extreme versions of this, and all
> of our quorums must be mixed manually by clients which is error prone. In
> my opinion we should be moving towards specifying quorums on a per-table
> basis for reads and wr
ers and migrate to safer setups.
From: Miles Garnsey
Date: Friday, 20 August 2021 at 12:51
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
Many thanks for this detailed response Benedict. I look forward to seeing the
forthcoming proposals in relation to schema change s
do not specify their consistency levels. This way the
> database can configure arbitrary quorums, and also guarantee that these
> quorums provide the desired consistency.
>
>
> From: Miles Garnsey
> Date: Friday, 20 August 2021 at 00:47
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>
their consistency levels. This way the database can configure
arbitrary quorums, and also guarantee that these quorums provide the desired
consistency.
From: Miles Garnsey
Date: Friday, 20 August 2021 at 00:47
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
Long time
On 2021/08/20 07:07:00, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> > e.g. mixing SERIAL with LOCAL_SERIAL, which is not safe unless you
> > perform a really intricate dance, but we can distinguish this case from
> > real bugs.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Benedict, possibly off-topic, but are there any plans or thoughts
> e.g. mixing SERIAL with LOCAL_SERIAL, which is not safe unless you
> perform a really intricate dance, but we can distinguish this case from
> real bugs.
>
>
>
Benedict, possibly off-topic, but are there any plans or thoughts around
adding EACH_SERIAL ?
A number of users have enquired about
y via assurance of
> the set of instances voting on a transaction.
>
> – Scott
>
>
> From: bened...@apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:31 PM
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
>
> RE:
> https:/
orm a really intricate dance,
but we can distinguish this case from real bugs.
> Also, way to sell the next discussion Benedict :D
:D
From: Patrick McFadin
Date: Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 21:48
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
I'm curious about thi
re generally, and what this might
> mean for how we perform consensus. A comparative discussion of EPaxos and
> other related work is very well suited to that topic, in my opinion.
>
>
> From: Jeremy Hanna
> Date: Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 00:58
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
&g
suited to that topic, in my opinion.
From: Jeremy Hanna
Date: Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 00:58
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
It sounds like a great improvement!
Just for those who had followed the development of ePaxos* that Blake and
others
ened...@apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:31 PM
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
>
> RE:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-14%3A+Paxos+Improvements
>
> I’m proposing this CEP for approval by
of linearizability via assurance of the
set of instances voting on a transaction.
– Scott
From: bened...@apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:31 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] CEP 14: Paxos Improvements
RE:
https://cwiki.apache.org
RE:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-14%3A+Paxos+Improvements
I’m proposing this CEP for approval by the project. The goal is to both improve
the performance of LWTs and to ensure their correctness across a range of
scenario like range movements. This work builds upon
18 matches
Mail list logo
