3 ms·
Yes, but devil's in the details. The fact CRDTs are provably able to have specific consistency guarantees doesn't mean a particular implementation does it corre
by lostcolony 9y ago
Yes, but devil's in the details. The fact CRDTs are provably able to have specific consistency guarantees doesn't mean a particular implementation does it correctly in all contexts. Without testing, "We built this (city) on CRDTs" isn't very useful.
- elvinyung 9y agoSure. My point is that it's a rough idea of what you could expect. If you look at the Jepsen posts for Cassandra and Riak, for example, you can see that the general characteristics are fairly similar.
- KirinDave 9y agoWhat's nice about building databases on compositions of CRDTs is that if you can validate the individual CRDTs via automated testing, you have a very high degree of confidence the composition of those CRDTs will do something similar. No one's arguing that a Jepsen test shouldn't be done. Just that it'll probably be very different in character from more invented industry technology.
- lostcolony 9y agoYes; if you can prove a system was built atop an academically sound paradigm, it's more likely to adhere to the guarantees that paradigm is intended to provide than a system built atop an unproven paradigm. Kinda goes without saying, though. :P Unsnarkily, I agree that implementation and composition of CRDTs is comparatively straightforward compared with other approaches people have taken. But if correct behavior is a requirement, full testing is too, regardless of how easy it -should- be in theory.