SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] today's scary thought
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] today's scary thought
- From: Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:24:18 +1000
- Reply-to: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
Nick Andrew <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
> This seems likely. Databases have different consistency requirements to
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 Pittman ✉ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx ☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons