couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: Could CouchDB 2.0 fix actual read quorum?
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:49:34 GMT
2.0 is explicitly an AP system, the behaviour you describe is not classified as a bug. 

Anti-entropy is the main reason that you cannot get strong consistency from the system, it
will transform "failed" writes (those that succeeded on one node but fewer than R nodes) into
success (N copies) as long as the nodes have enough healthy uptime. 

True of cloudant and 2.0. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Mar 2015, at 15:14, Mutton, James <> wrote:
> Funny you should mention it.  I drafted an email in early February to queue up the same
discussion whenever I could get involved again (which I promptly forgot about).  What happens
currently in 2.0 appears unchanged from earlier versions.  When R is not satisfied in fabric,
fabric_doc_open:handle_message eventually responds with a {stop, …}  but leaves the acc-state
as the original r_not_met which triggers a read_repair from the response handler.  read_repair
results in an {ok, …} with the only doc available, because no other docs are in the list.
 The final doc returned to chttpd_db:couch_doc_open and thusly to chttpd_db:db_doc_req is
simply {ok, Doc}, which has now lost the fact that the answer was not complete.
> This seems straightforward to fix by a change in fabric_open_doc:handle_response and
read_repair.  handle_response knows whether it has R met and could pass that forward, or allow
read-repair to pass it forward if read_repair is able to satisfy acc.r.  I can’t speak for
community interest in the behavior of sending a 202, but it’s something I’d definitely
like for the same reasons you cite.  Plus it just seems disconnected to do it on writes but
not reads.
> Cheers,
> </JamesM>
>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 14:06, Nathan Vander Wilt <> wrote:
>> Sorry, I have not been following CouchDB 2.0 roadmap but I was extending my fermata-couchdb
plugin today and realized that perhaps the Apache release of BigCouch as CouchDB 2.0 might
provide an opportunity to fix a serious issue I had using Cloudant's implementation.
>> See for some
additional background/explanation, but my understanding is that Cloudant for all practical
purposes ignores the read durability parameter. So you can write with ?w=N to attempt some
level of quorum, and get a 202 back if that quorum is unment. _However_ when you ?r=N it really
doesn't matter if only <N nodes are available…if even just a single available node has
some version of the requested document you will get a successful response (!).
>> So in practice, there's no way to actually use the quasi-Dynamo features to dynamically
_choose_ between consistency or availability — when it comes time to read back a consistent
result, BigCouch instead just always gives you availability* regardless of what a given request
actually needs. (In my usage I ended up treating a 202 write as a 500, rather than proceeding
with no way of ever knowing whether a write did NOT ACTUALLY conflict or just hadn't YET because
$who_knows_how_many nodes were still down…)
>> IIRC, this was both confirmed and acknowledged as a serious bug by a Cloudant engineer
(or support personnel at least) but could not be quickly fixed as it could introduce backwards-compatibility
concerns. So…
>> Is CouchDB 2.0 already breaking backwards compatibility with BigCouch? If true, could
this read durability issue now be fixed during the merge?
>> thanks,
>> -natevw
>> * DISCLAIMER: this statement has not been endorsed by actual uptime of *any* Couch

View raw message