On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:18 AM, AJ a...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
Good morning all.
Hypothetical Setup:
1 data center
RF = 3
Total nodes 3
Problem:
Suppose I need maximum consistency for one critical operation; thus I
specify CL = ALL for reads. However, this will fail if only 1 replica
On 6/16/2011 10:05 AM, Ryan King wrote:
I don't think this buys you anything that you can't get with quorum
reads and writes.
-ryan
QUORUM = ALL_AVAIL = ALL == RF
-
From: Ryan King [mailto:r...@twitter.com]
Sent: June-16-11 12:05
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Propose new ConsistencyLevel.ALL_AVAIL for reads
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:18 AM, AJ a...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
Good morning all.
Hypothetical Setup:
1 data center
RF = 3
Total
On 6/16/2011 10:58 AM, Dan Hendry wrote:
I think this would add a lot of complexity behind the scenes and be
conceptually confusing, particularly for new users.
I'm not so sure about this. Cass is already somewhat sophisticated and
I don't see how this could trip-up anyone who can already
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, AJ a...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:58 AM, Dan Hendry wrote:
I think this would add a lot of complexity behind the scenes and be
conceptually confusing, particularly for new users.
I'm not so sure about this. Cass is already somewhat
On 6/16/2011 2:37 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, AJa...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
snip
The Cassandra consistency model is pretty elegant and this type of
approach breaks that elegance in many ways. It would also only really be
useful when the value has a high
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:12 PM, AJ a...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
On 6/16/2011 2:37 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, AJa...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
snip
The Cassandra consistency model is pretty elegant and this type of
approach breaks that elegance in many ways. It
How would your solution deal with complete network partitions? A node being
'down' does not actually mean it is dead, just that it is unreachable from
whatever is making the decision to mark it 'down'.
Following from Ryan's example, consider nodes A, B, and C but within a
fully partitioned
UPDATE to my suggestion is below.
On 6/16/2011 5:50 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:12 PM, AJa...@dude.podzone.net wrote:
On 6/16/2011 2:37 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, AJa...@dude.podzone.netwrote:
snip
The Cassandra consistency model is pretty
On 6/16/2011 7:56 PM, Dan Hendry wrote:
How would your solution deal with complete network partitions? A node
being 'down' does not actually mean it is dead, just that it is
unreachable from whatever is making the decision to mark it 'down'.
Following from Ryan's example, consider nodes A, B,
Help me out here. I'm trying to visualize a situation where the clients
can access all the C* nodes but the nodes can't access each other. I don't
see how that can happen on a regular ethernet subnet in one data center.
Well, Im sure there is a case that you can point out. Ok, I will concede
On 6/16/2011 9:36 PM, Dan Hendry wrote:
Help me out here. I'm trying to visualize a situation where the
clients can access all the C* nodes but the nodes can't access each
other. I don't see how that can happen on a regular ethernet subnet
in one data center. Well, Im sure there is a case
12 matches
Mail list logo
