From my point of view, I think that what you propose is the right solution.
With READ ONE and WRITE ALL, we shall still have a strong consistency.
I am going to add a comment in the ticket 5310.
Why not WRITE.ALL READ.ONE? I don't think permissions are updated often and READ.ONE provides maximum availability.--2013/3/4 aaron morton <email@example.com>
Yes.In this case, it means that if there is a network split between the 2 datacenters, it is impossible to get the quorum, and all connections will be rejected.I would guess to ensure there is a single, cluster wide, set of permissions.Is there a reason why Cassandra uses the Quorum consistency level ?Using LOCAL or one could result in some requests that are rejected being allowed on other nodes.CheersOn 1/03/2013, at 6:40 AM, Jean-Armel Luce <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Hi,
I am using Cassandra 1.2.2.
There are 16 nodes in my cluster in 2 datacenters (8 nodes in each datacenter).
I am using NetworkTopologyStrategy.
For information, I set a RF = 6 (3 replicas in each datacenter)
With 1.2.2, I am using the new authentication backend PasswordAuthenticator with the authorizer CassandraAuthorizer.
In the documentation (http://www.datastax.com/docs/1.2/security/security_keyspace_replication#security-keyspace-replication), it is written that for all system_auth-related queries, Cassandra uses the QUORUM consistency level.
In this case, it means that if there is a network split between the 2 datacenters, it is impossible to get the quorum, and all connections will be rejected.
Is there a reason why Cassandra uses the Quorum consistency level ?
Maybe a local_quorum conssitency level (or a one consistency level) could do the job ?