There is a lot of interest in ramp, but the dependency on requiring a unique timestamp id is a bitch.
There is zero interest in committing and maintaining a more heavyweight framework to get all the way to serializable cross-partition transactions. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Marek Lewandowski < marekmlewandow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > I haven’t heard about it before, but now I’ve read it and it indeed offers > something interesting. I’ve read blog post, paper and comments at Jira so I > need to digest it a bit and let it sink in. Thanks for letting me know > about it. > > Can you tell me something more about the status of that feature? Would you > like to have it? > From what I see, discussion stopped year ago and it has minor priority so > it doesn’t seem like a hot subject that everyone awaits. > > Maybe I can incorporate that as a building block for something more > functional. While reading I noticed that some concepts resemble what I’ve > been thinking about, but here it is obviously much more detailed and > specified. I need to digest it. > > > On 07 Aug 2015, at 18:05, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Have you seen RAMP transactions? > > > > I think that's a much better fit for C* than fully linearizable > operations > > cross-partition. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7056 > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Marek Lewandowski < > > marekmlewandow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Ellis > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > @spyced > > -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
