3 ms·
The fuck are you even talking about? 1) scaling is easy . . . oh casandra. Where you can't have C and don't care about P. 2) Let me tell you about banks. I us
by ianamartin 10y ago
The fuck are you even talking about?
1) scaling is easy . . . oh casandra. Where you can't have C and don't care about P.
2) Let me tell you about banks. I used to work for banks. Banks do not use systems that are eventually consistent. Banks use systems--however old and outmoded--that are strongly consistent. Banks do not use systems that are eventually consistent except for ACH transfers. And that's not a database. That's a flat file
3) There is no cassandra world that you speak of. This is utter bullshit.
4) No it's not untrue. Cow--as we call it on me team--absolutely sucks at C when you're talking about scaling horizontally.
Make up your mind. Is this good at single node guarantees or is it good at sharded guarantees?
Pick one.
We know for a fact that if you want CAP, you can't have all three. You can have AP or CP, but you can't have all of them. If you're arguing that you can have C and A, you have failed at P.
Maybe that's a thing you're willing to trade-off. But it doesn't in any way relate to my point.
My point, if you missed it, was this: if you want strong consistency, you need a relational database, and you need transactional guarantees.
That is hard to do, and no one does it well yet. You're just lying to people if you say otherwise.
- manigandham 10y agoCassandra lets you tweak the C or A trade-off on each query by setting the consistency level. So yes, the same system can provide both guarantees, depending on which you need. > if you want strong consistency, you need a relational database You can have consistency without transactions. Overall, it really sounds like you've never used or know much about Cassandra, and are possibly confused on the CAP theorem.
- jjirsa 10y agoI don't know what your background is, but I'm really encouraged by the fact that I've worked my whole career without having to deal with people that behave like you. > 1) scaling is easy . . . oh casandra. Where you can't have C and don't care about P. This isn't about teaching me the CAP theorem. I know the CAP theorem. I know the tradeoffs. I've built and managed systems that handle hundreds of billions of events a day, writing millions of writes a second into a thousand cassandra nodes. You can have C, if you want it - you dont get transactions with rollbacks, but that doesn't mean you dont have consistency. > 2) Let me tell you about banks. I used to work for banks. Banks do not use systems that are eventually consistent All this time, I thought ING was a bank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiqdX23u_Mk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiqdX23u_Mk Also: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/1/myth-eric-brewer-on-why-banks-are-base-not-acid-availability.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/1/myth-eric-brewer-on... > 3) There is no cassandra world that you speak of. This is utter bullshit. I see, lame troll or wholly clueless. Guess I'm done.
- late2part 10y agoBanks do not use systems that are eventually consistent. Got a citation for that, skipper? Never mind, I found one: http://bfy.tw/9bcO http://bfy.tw/9bcO