Hi Alex: Hmmm ... Assuming clock skew is eliminated.... And assuming nodes are up and available ... And assuming quorum writes and quorum reads and everyone waiting for success ( which is NOT The OP scenario), Two different clients will be guaranteed to see all successful writes, or be told that read failed.
C1 writes at quorum to A,B C2 reads at quorum. So it tries to read from ALL nodes, A,B, C. If A,B respond --> success If A,C respond --> conflict If B, C respond --> conflict Because a quorum (2 nodes) responded, the coordinator will return the latest time stamp and may issue read repair depending on YAML settings. So where do you see only one client having this guarantee? Regards, James > On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:00 AM, Alexander DEJANOVSKI <adejanov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > the analysis is valid, and strong consistency the Cassandra way means that > one client writing at quorum, then reading at quorum will always see his > previous write. > Two different clients have no guarantee to see the same data when using > quorum, as illustrated in your example. > > Only options here are to route requests to specific clients based on some id > to guarantee the sequence of operations outside of Cassandra (the same client > will always be responsible for a set of ids), or raise the CL to ALL at the > expense of availability (you should not do that). > > > Cheers, > > Alex > >> Le mer. 14 sept. 2016 à 11:47, Qi Li <ken.l...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> hi all, >> >> we are using quorum consistency, and we *suspect* there may be a race >> condition during the write. lets say RF is 3. so write will wait for at >> least 2 nodes to ack. suppose there is only 1 node acked(node A). the other >> 2 nodes(node B, C) are still waiting to update. there come two read requests >> one read is having the data responded from the node B and C, so version 1 us >> returned. >> the other node is having data responded from node A and B, so the latest >> version 2 is returned. >> >> so clients are getting different data at the same time. is this a valid >> analysis? if so, is there any options we can set to deal with this issue? >> >> thanks >> Ken
