> Isn't this is a rather common configuration for a distributed DB? In my experience it is not. Rather, aggressive fsyncing/O_DIRECT usage are common. The rati

> Isn't this is a rather common configuration for a distributed DB? In my experience it is not. Rather, aggressive fsyncing/O_DIRECT usage are common. The rationale for this is usually partition risk: better to durably log a write before propagating it than to potentially fail in propagating it and then be left in a position of having to either reactively fsync or hope that automatic flush-to-disk will persist your unexpectedly-sole possession of that update.