On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In any case, we should stop thinking that log delay and the MMD are >> essential properties of this system. >> > > I'm confused by this conclusion, and apologies if I've misunderstood. > > Can you explain how this statement differs, from say a discussion about > keeping a database in RAM and never flushing to disk? You can have amazing > QPS - but terrible reliability. It sounds like you're describing that > you've built an unreliable, but efficient, system, and are using that as > proof that reliability is not a critical property? > That's part of why I used Spanner as one of our test points. At least according to Al at the CT policy days, that's what his team is using as storage for their logs. So presumably it's suitably reliable? I'm definitely willing to admit there's a trade-off here. My point is just that the reliability requirements are not inconsistent with a sufficiently high transaction rate to serve existing needs. --Richard
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
