accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <>
Subject Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:06:55 GMT
No, FATE is for ensuring all steps of an action get completed, not
atomicity. I think of FATE as system level eventual consistency.

For example, when we create a table, we put in !METADATA entries and put
some records in Zookeeper. If the master dies midway through, we're then
left with a table in a half-state that must be manually cleaned up. FATE
provides a mechanism for ensuring that all parts of a multi-phase system
process get completed, but it doesn't do anything for ensuring that the
entirety of a complex operation is completed before it gets noticed.

However, it is possible to jimmy it into the current system via combination
of custom iterators and embedded transaction IDs in the Key. But we
currently provide nothing of the sort.


On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM, David Medinets <>wrote:

> I went to a talk about Foundation DB the other day. They said that
> Foundation DB was the only NoSQL tool with transactions. But then I
> thought, does FATE serve as a transaction boundary ... at least for
> Mutations?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message