4 ms·
That's actually the exact opposite of what he says. He says that CA can be vacuously satisfied by a system by simply going unavailable. It makes totally sense,
by seliopou 11y ago
That's actually the exact opposite of what he says. He says that CA can be vacuously satisfied by a system by simply going unavailable. It makes totally sense, but is a pathological behavior. It's a confusion that many people have about CAP, which I tried to clarify in a blog post[0] a couple months ago, in response to some other articles were going around at the time.
[0]: http://computationallyendowed.com/blog/2015/07/09/cap-theorem-logic.html http://computationallyendowed.com/blog/2015/07/09/cap-theore...
- derefr 11y agoYep. A valid partition-intolerant system is one where nodes on both sides of a partition will automatically do something drastic, like unconditionally terminating, so that no subset of the nodes remains for clients to talk to. The interesting thing about CA systems is that their behavior strongly resembles that of non-distributed systems. It's just like having one SPOF machine!
- brianpgordon 11y ago"CA can be vacuously satisfied by a system by simply going unavailable" That kind of takes the A out of CA.
- grogers 11y agoCA means you are giving up both consistency and availability if a partition happens (otherwise you'd be CP or AP). How is that at all useful in a distributed system?