That's what I'm saying, yes. On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Marek Lewandowski < marekmlewandow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > > -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
