rce-applied it before actually reading the new
value
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Mahdi Ben Hamida <mailto:ma...@signalfx.com>> wrote:
Totally understood that it's not worth (or it's rather incorrect)
to mix serial and non serial operations for LWT tables. It woul
Haddad wrote:
If you want consistent reads you have to use the CL that enforces it.
There’s no way around it.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:35 PM Mahdi Ben Hamida <mailto:ma...@signalfx.com>> wrote:
In this case, we only write using CAS (code guarantees that). We
also never update, just inser
33 PM, Mahdi Ben Hamida <mailto:ma...@signalfx.com>> wrote:
Under what circumstances would we be reading inconsistent results
? Is there a case where we end up reading a value that actually
end up not being written ?
If you ever write the same value with CAS and without
level but serial for reading
tables updated by LWT operations. Otherwise you might end up reading
inconsistent results.
On 09.02.18 08:06, Mahdi Ben Hamida wrote:
Hello,
I'm running a 2.0.17 cluster (I know, I know, need to upgrade) with
46 nodes across 3 racks (& RF=3). I'
Hello,
I'm running a 2.0.17 cluster (I know, I know, need to upgrade) with 46
nodes across 3 racks (& RF=3). I'm seeing that under high contention,
LWT may actually not guarantee uniqueness. With a total of 16 million
LWT transactions (with peak LWT concurrency around 5k/sec), I found 38
conf
