actually I have been also thinking about doing something like redundant execution of transaction. So you have this *single active thing* that executes transaction, but you can also have redundancy of form of other _followers_ that try to execute same transactions (like a dry-run) and upon detection of failure of *single active thing* one of them could pick transaction execution and finish it. Still it's a little bit vague and needs a lot more details, but now system could recover from failure of this _single active thing_. What do you think?
2015-08-07 14:48 GMT+02:00 Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de>: > > > On 07 Aug 2015, at 14:35, Marek Lewandowski <marekmlewandow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > In both of my ideas there > > is some central piece. > > > That’s the point - a single thing. A single thing IS a > single-point-of-failure. > Sorry to reply that drastically: that’s an absolute no-go in C*. Every > node must be equal - no special “this” or special “that”. > > — > Robert Stupp > @snazy > > -- Marek Lewandowski
