cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cassandra vs hbase summary (was facebook messaging)
Date Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:48:51 GMT
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM, David Jeske <davidj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Return messages such as "your data was written to at least 1 node but
>> not enough to make your write-consistency count". Do not help the
>> situation. As the client that writes the data would be aware of the
>> inconsistency, but the other clients would not. Thus it only makes
>> sense to pass or fail entirely. (Thought it could be an interesting
>> error message)
>>
>

I should have thought about that before I sent it. Let me rephrase.

Doesn't the current return message actually mean "your data was written to
between 0 and N nodes, but not enoguh to make your write-consistency count"?


I agree with you that "your data was written to at least 1 node but not
enough to make your write consistency count" is not that useful. However,
the current "failure" seems to merge a "real failure" (i.e. your data will
never show up) with a "possible failure" (your data might show up)

Personally I'd really ilke to know if "my data was not written at all", and
that has a very different meaning than "my data was sort-of-written, but not
replicated as widely as I'd like, but it someday might be, or it someday
might not".

Mime
View raw message