So basically, you are saying that even if I had developed something to provide serializable cross-partition transactions still nobody cares, nobody wants it because it would be too complex and for sure not performant enough?
I just want to hear it crystal clear, so that I can talk to my supervisor and redirect my efforts to something more useful for you guys like this ramp for example. > On 07 Aug 2015, at 23:32, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
