4 ms·
The model is very similar to the one argued for in this paper: http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07p15.pdf http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07
by jamii 16y ago
The model is very similar to the one argued for in this paper:
http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07p15.pdf http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07p15.pdf
That paper was a big inspiration when we were redesigning the betting exchange at smarkets. It's a very well reasoned exposition of why this is the only sensible architecture for large scale distributed systems.
- pants 16y agoDoes your version have "full" fault tolerance or only the "partial" fault tolerance noted on the s4 site.
- jamii 16y agoI guess it depends how you define 'full' fault tolerance. In the case of a machine failure it would lose a couple of seconds worth of transactions. In a data-processing scenario thats not an issue - just re-run the data that hasn't been processed yet. In an exchange the recovery delay is a bit more painful and there is always the potential to permanently lose transactions. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way around that - we must have consistency and performance so machine failure is always going to cause some interruption to availability