Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 216.139.236.26 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of mohitanchlia@gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:53:23 -0800 (PST)
From: mcasandra <mohitanchlia@gmail.com>
To: cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <1298051603878-6040893.post@n2.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikDYqa8uQxrigVz6V7n_iS+s_jLO4cD03qdbs30@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1297991508656-6038330.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <9f715825-f9bd-6734-fe87-9494463f27c0@me.com>
 <AANLkTim1=mAQ8dx09E3FzG8icMTSpczHvEb+xMiHzE=K@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikDYqa8uQxrigVz6V7n_iS+s_jLO4cD03qdbs30@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Understand eventually consistent
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I have couple of more quesitons:

1. What happens when RF = 3, R = 2 and W = 2 and 2 machines go down? Would
read and write fail or get the results from that one machine that is up?
2. Someone in this thread mentioned that write is eventually consistent. Is
it because response is returned to the client as soon as data is written to
commit log. But isn't this same as other RDBMS? Oracle does the same thing
it writes to REDO log and somepoint later does a checkpoint and flushes data
to disk. But RDBMS is not called eventually consistent.
-- 
View this message in context: http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/Understand-eventually-consistent-tp6038330p6040893.html
Sent from the cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org mailing list archive at Nabble.com.