4 ms·
It's a good observation that out-of-orderness and asynchrony contribute a lot to the challenge. > the inconsistency between your cache nodes is a consequence o
by uvdn7 4y ago
It's a good observation that out-of-orderness and asynchrony contribute a lot to the challenge.
> the inconsistency between your cache nodes is a consequence of the underlying design of your system
I disagree with this. First of all, imposing order and synchrony is expensive, slow and unreliable. Even if we do that, cache fill and invalidation will never be externally coordinated; and will collide on the cache host.
- wildmanx 4y ago> > the inconsistency between your cache nodes is a consequence of the underlying design of your system > I disagree with this. First of all, imposing order and synchrony is expensive, slow and unreliable. Even if we do that, cache fill and invalidation will never be externally coordinated; and will collide on the cache host. This is a weird reply. GP writes "A implied B" and you disagree by arguing that you had to do A. Sure. But it's still what implied B. Quite a fundamental logic flaw, no?
- uvdn7 4y agoI don't see that. Yes I did say I had to do A. Then I said that it doesn't imply B. Because even if the underlying system is strongly ordered, we can't order external events. Did I miss something?
- wildmanx 4y agoA == "Design of your system" B == "Inconsistency between your caches" GP: A -> B You: "Imposing order and synchrony is [bad things]" == "If you don't do A then [bad things]", i.e., (not A) -> [bad things] Also you: "Even if we did, then [other issues]" == "Even if you don't do A then [other issues]", i.e., (not A) -> ..what? B? You are certainly not arguing against the A -> B implication.
- uvdn7 4y agoI really appreciate your comment. I am learning as we speak. I was essentially saying !A !-> !B - even if we have a strongly ordered system, there will still be inconsistencies/races/problems. And I can see why it's a bad/weird argument. Thank you for pointing it out. Really appreciate it! EDIT: I would have rephrased it this way - A -> B is right - But !A -> B also holds. Hence what we talked about here is relevant/useful regardless. And it's not about A. Would that be better?