Retry is the best option. Because the read repair will fix it on a
subsequent read and it will actually fix it with a value that was actually
deemed a failed write to the client.
Avinash
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:47 AM, David Strauss wrote:
> A read repair will fix it immediately after the first
A read repair will fix it immediately after the first read of the row.
On 2010-04-08 16:36, Mark Greene wrote:
> So unless you re-try the write, the previous stale write stays on the
> other two nodes? Would a read repair fix this eventually?
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Avinash Lakshman
His arguments consistently (hah!) boil down to this: if you
misconfigure things for your intended application, you get undesirable
behavior. For example, the correct approach to the situation cited is
to use quorum reads and writes. W=3/R=1/N=3 might be appropriate for
situations in which you wan
Yes. Or you would retry the write. Either way, the system achieves
consistency eventually, hence the name.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Mark Greene wrote:
> So unless you re-try the write, the previous stale write stays on the other
> two nodes? Would a read repair fix this eventually?
>
So unless you re-try the write, the previous stale write stays on the other
two nodes? Would a read repair fix this eventually?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Avinash Lakshman <
avinash.laksh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What your describing is a distributed transaction? Generally strong
> consistenc
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> ¹ http://jsensarma.com/blog/2009/11/dynamo-part-i-a-followup-and-re-rebuttals/
>
Pay no attention to this disingenuous troll.
b
What your describing is a distributed transaction? Generally strong
consistency is always associated with doing transactional writes where you
never see the results of a failed write on a subsequent read no matter what
happens. Cassandra has no notion of rollback. That is why no combination
will gi
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 02:55, Paul Prescod wrote:
>> In this¹ debate, there seemed to be consensus on the following fact:
>>
>> "In Cassandra, say you use N=3, W=3 & R=1. Let’s say you managed to
>> only write to replicas A & B, but not C. In
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 02:55, Paul Prescod wrote:
> In this¹ debate, there seemed to be consensus on the following fact:
>
> "In Cassandra, say you use N=3, W=3 & R=1. Let’s say you managed to
> only write to replicas A & B, but not C. In this case Cassandra will
> return an error to the applicati
