manuzhang wrote
> read quorum doesn't mean we read newest values from a quorum number of
> replicas but to ensure we read at least one newest value as long as write
> quorum succeeded beforehand and W+R > N.
I beg to differ here. Any read/write, by definition of quorum, should have
at least n/2 +
Hiller, Dean wrote
> I guess one more thing is I completely ignore your second write mainly
> because I assume it comes after we already read so your let's say you
> current state is
>
> node1 = val1 node2 = val1 node3 = val1
>
> You do a write quorom of val=2 which is IN the middle!!!
>
> node1
Hiller, Dean wrote
> in general it is okay to get the older or newer value. If you are reading
> 2 rows however instead of one, that may change.
This is certainly interesting, as it could mean that the user could see a
value that never met the required consistency. For instance with 3 replicas
a
manuzhang wrote
> why repair again? We block until the consistency constraint is met. Then
> the latest version is returned and repair is done asynchronously if any
> mismatch. We may retry read if fewer columns than required are returned.
Just to make sure I understand you correct, considering th
Hello,
This conversation precisely targets a question that I had been having for a
while - would be grateful if you someone cloud clarify it a little further:
Considering the case of a "repair" created due to a consistency constraint
(first case in the discussion above), would the following int
