milleruntime commented on PR #2665: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2665#issuecomment-1138536523
> It's weird to ask for eventual consistency. Nobody wants eventual consistency. Eventual consistency is always tolerated, never desired. Eventual consistency for reads is desired in this case, but perhaps it isn't the best name. The user is willing to sacrifice the liveness of reads for increased availability of the tservers. We could call it Strong Eventual Consistency, but I think that is used mostly for writes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency#Strong_eventual_consistency. Maybe we could call the traditional scans "Live Scans", like we do with Live Ingest. And then calling the new scans "Cached Scans" or something. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
