4 ms·
This is a restatement of the Cassandra docs paired with the usual misunderstanding of CAP. An AP system is not a choice of "I'll have availability and partitio
by omginternets 6y ago
This is a restatement of the Cassandra docs paired with the usual misunderstanding of CAP. An AP system is not a choice of "I'll have availability and partition tolerance, please". It's the choice of availability given a partition. The whole point of CAP is that when partitions occur, there is a forced choice -- this is why it's incorrect to ask for a CA system.
The Minio team are manifestly excellent engineers, but insightless posts that contain subtle misunderstandings of CAP do nothing to showcase that competence.
- acscott 6y agoDo you mean AP is the choice of losing consistency given a partition?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- llarsson 6y agoThat's how it is usually expressed, yes.
- omginternets 6y agoOh duh... You were pointing out a typo in my comment. I'm leaving my original reply below because what the hell. ~~~~ Yes, exactly. Think of it this way: you don't actually have any control over partitioning, therefore partitions are a given. So CAP is expressed as such: given a partition, choose between consistency and availability. EDIT: I personally find PACELC [0] less confusing, and more nuanced than CAP, but they basically say the same thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem