3 ms·
> I don’t agree with much in this writing other than that eventual consistency is a bad choice Does it really matter wherever is bad or not? As far as I know,
by ffsm8 2y ago
> I don’t agree with much in this writing other than that eventual consistency is a bad choice
Does it really matter wherever is bad or not? As far as I know, every database that scales beyond a single node (for performance) is eventually consistent. Otherwise you've gotta wait for a sync between nodes before a response can be given, which would effectively force your cluster to have worse performance then running on single node again.
- jashmatthews 2y agoThere are a bunch that offer strong consistency e.g. Cloud Spanner and DynamoDB.
- mping 2y agoDon't forget FoundationDB
- sriram_malhar 2y ago> As far as I know, every database that scales beyond a single node (for performance) is eventually consistent That's SO not true. Spanner, Amazon's S3 are some of the biggest databases on the planet, and they are strongly consistent. > Otherwise you've gotta wait for a sync between nodes before a response can be given, which would effectively force your cluster to have worse performance then running on single node again. Yes, you are trading latency for fault-tolerance, but so what? What if the resulting latency is still more than good enough? There is no shortage of real large-scale applications where this is the case.