Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28A6B9C64 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 11777 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2012 14:13:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 11743 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2012 14:13:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 11735 invoked by uid 99); 28 Feb 2012 14:13:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:13:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michid@gmail.com designates 64.18.1.33 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.18.1.33] (HELO exprod6og114.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.33) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:13:08 +0000 Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0zg32EqoaV/2nOnYZs+4Q/WaK3DxoQz@postini.com; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:12:47 PST Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4.adobe.com [193.104.215.14]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q1SEAmJ0003877 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nacas01.corp.adobe.com (nacas01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.99]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q1SECjPl021526 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:12:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from eurcas01.eur.adobe.com (10.128.4.27) by nacas01.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:12:44 -0800 Received: from susi.local (10.136.129.21) by eurcas01.eur.adobe.com (10.128.4.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.192.1; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:12:41 +0000 Message-ID: <4F4CE0D9.6020900@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:12:41 +0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_D=FCrig?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [jr3 trade consistency for availability] References: <4F4527A9.6060507@adobe.com> <9C0FC4C8E9C29945B01766FC7F9D389816E3A56CC4@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com> <4F462659.4080102@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4F462659.4080102@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 23.2.12 11:43, Michael D�rig wrote: > > >>> - Atomicity of save operations? >> >> how does a temporary violation of atomic saves look like? >> are you thinking of partially visible changes? >> > > I actually had clustering on my mind where the repository is partitioned > across various cluster nodes. If we require atomicity for save operation > across partitions we will need to implement some form of atomic > commitment protocol (i.e. two phase commit). This can cause blocking in > the face of network failures (i.e. less availability). Again, Apache Zookeeper might be worth looking into if we decide to implement ACP. Michael > > Michael