https://aphyr.com/posts/329-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-1-5 https://aphyr.com/posts/329-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-1-5 > As far as I can ascertain, RethinkDB’s safety claims ar

https://aphyr.com/posts/329-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-1-5 https://aphyr.com/posts/329-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-1-5 > As far as I can ascertain, RethinkDB’s safety claims are accurate. You can lose updates if you write with anything less than majority, and see assorted read anomalies with single or outdated reads, but majority/majority appears linearizable. The safety claims are accurate but like all databases, its never 100% perfect as there are tradeoffs. https://aphyr.com/posts/330-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-2-3-reconfiguration https://aphyr.com/posts/330-jepsen-rethinkdb-2-2-3-reconfigu... > That reordering was only possible because of a special workaround for a bug in an older version of RethinkDB. > What are the risks to users? The RethinkDB team and I suspect it’s unlikely this bug will occur outside of stress testing. Cluster reconfiguration is typically infrequent, and users would need a specific series of network failures or other message delays which happen to cut the replicas apart—in a way which allows both network components to find independent majorities for their respective table configurations. In Jepsen tests, it usually takes tens to hundreds of partition/reconfigure rounds to trigger this bug. This isn't really an architectural failure (as you see repeatedly with MongoDB) but an implementation bug. Compared to the failures in MongoDB that are frequently architectural (rather than implementation bugs), RethinkDB passed easily and quickly fixed the implementation bugs.