You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010)

Re:You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) by kerkeslager on Sunday May 15, 2016 @02:46PM (#11702148)

Ah, okay, I didn't understand that next part correctly the first time. So that does account for why the author says such systems are rare.

But that doesn't really help me understand why CA can't exist. There are still systems that simply don't have network partitions. SQLite on the same phone as the app using it? As I said, it doesn't seem like we ignore the rare or uninteresting cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) by jasonwatkinspdx on Sunday May 15, 2016 @03:28PM (#11702338)

The CAP theorem is fundamentally about distributed systems. The name is on the tin. It's not ignoring things, you're trying to pick an argument via examples outside the explicitly defined scope.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) by wmf on Sunday May 15, 2016 @05:16PM (#11702805)

Clustered CA systems can exist and they corrupt data (maybe silently) when a partition happens. In most discussions it is taken for granted that people don't tolerate data corruption.

Single-node "CA" systems are "available" under CAP's definition but not available under the common sense definition. A single hardware failure will take out the entire system (but in theory everything will be in perfect order after you restore from backups).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) by sciurus on Sunday May 15, 2016 @07:50PM (#11703345)

A "clustered CA" system that corrupts data sounds like a AP system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) by wmf on Sunday May 15, 2016 @08:15PM (#11703444)

During a partition an AP system just returns stale data but a CA system may completely crash or lose all data.

[ Parent | on HN ]