Nick Andrew <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:31:42PM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> Also, lots of different apps, so I might well end up with multiple
>> solutions.
>
> This seems likely. Databases have different consistency requirements to
> people.
One of the attractions of Cassandra is that it allows the client to specify
the consistency level required, from none, through to "every node ever", or
quorum, or whatever.
I need to look further at Riak to work out how well their model expresses the
same, although as they don't do cross-WAN out of the box it has a lesser
problem to contend with.
>> A good distributed POSIX FS with replication, eventual consistency, some
>> sensible conflict resolution model, and data center awareness would have
>> been easy enough to use though.
>
> Conflict resolution is the problem. The less of that you want, the more
> synchronous your filesystem has to become - or expose more non-POSIX
> filesystem behaviour to applications.
*nod* Very true. I think, for most people, the Dropbox model of conflict
resolution would be great to have in a file system:
Find a conflict, generate two documents, one with each version. Viola, you
just punted the hard problem up to a human.
Less good for machines, naturally, although a similar process can help.
Daniel
--
✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ [email protected] ☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
