The Unclear CP vs. CA Case in CAP

Re:The Unclear CP vs. CA Case in CAP by saurik on Friday April 24, 2015 @03:36PM (#9435584)

This is CP: you have chosen to sacrifice availability by making operations fail when replicas cannot be contacted due to a partition. The concept of "partition tolerance" ends up heavily overlapping with the concept of "availability" to the point where trying to make tradeoffs between the two without sacrificing consistency is essentially nonsensical. As put by Coda Hale: "You Can't Sacrifice Partition Tolerence".

http://codahale.com/you-cant-sacrifice-partition-tolerance/

(Sadly, Coda deferred to someone important after writing this article, someone whom I don't think bothered to think through how much more beautiful Coda's explanation of a "partition" is than the AFAICT impossible-to-discern one that supposedly was being used in the original paper :/. I frankly think the final "update" to the article should be ignored. FWIW, in the first "update", it is pointed out that Eric Brewer actually have a very positive shout-out to Coda's article.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unclear CP vs. CA Case in CAP by nkeywal on Thursday April 30, 2015 @03:29AM (#9463727)

> I frankly think the final "update" to the article should be ignored. Coda updated his post just because he was wrong on his definition of partition. Stonebraker pointed out: "You simply failover to a replica in a transactionally consistent way. Notably, at least Tandem and Vertica have been doing exactly this for years. Therefore, considering a node failure as a partition results in an obviously inappropriate CAP theorem conclusion."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unclear CP vs. CA Case in CAP by henrikschroder on Saturday April 25, 2015 @04:09PM (#9439428)

Ah, I see, I misunderstood Availability, I assumed that returning an error would count.

[ Parent | on HN ]