Ryan King actually has a very nice, short and sweet explanation that cuts through the FUD:
http://theryanking.com/entries/2010/04/29/potential-consistency/ On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Steve Lihn <stevel...@gmail.com> wrote: > So if I set it up to be strongly consistent, I should have the same level > of consistency as traditional relational DB ? > > On the other hand, what will happen if I set it up as eventual consistent? > Will the data become inconsistent after a crash/reboot, similar to the case > of asynchronous replication? Is there an automated conflict resolution > algorithm in Cassandra (which will likely cause data loss)? Or human > intervention is needed? > > Steve > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Joe Stump <j...@joestump.net> wrote: > >> This is largely FUD. Cassandra let's you choose how consistent you want >> writes to be. The more consistency you choose, the slower the writes, but >> it's very unlikely with high consistency that you'll lose data. >> >> That being said, if you write with a consistency level of 0 then, yes, you >> could lose data. Cassandra's consistency is much like root privileges on >> Unix systems; it gives you more than enough rope to hang yourself if you so >> choose to. >> >> --Joe >> >> >> On May 24, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Steve Lihn wrote: >> >> > I am evaluating Cassandra as a candidate for our next-gen database. One >> of my colleagues told me that "it's not recommended to use it as your system >> of Record because it CAN lose data". Can someone with architecture >> understanding shed some light on under what circumstance Cassandra cluster >> can either lose data or become inconsistent ? (a node in a cluster crashes, >> network partitions, I/O glitches, etc.) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Steve >> >> >
