On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, qaspar wrote:
>> When a Riak write "fails" the value can still have been written.
>>
>> Failure is really just a notification that the write didn't complete as
>> requested, usually because one or more of the cluster writes failed.
>
> Can you post a link that con
Kresten Krab Thorup wrote
> When a Riak write "fails" the value can still have been written.
>
> Failure is really just a notification that the write didn't complete as
> requested, usually because one or more of the cluster writes failed.
Can you post a link that confirms this when DW (on top of
Kaspar,
When a Riak write "fails" the value can still have been written.
Failure is really just a notification that the write didn't complete as
requested, usually because one or more of the cluster writes failed.
And being written, even just to a single node, that singly written value can
lat
Justin Sheehy wrote
> Yes, I confirmed this earlier in this thread:
>
> http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2013-January/010672.html
>
> -Justin
Sorry for the double-post, that was not intended. What about setting
DW=DR=2? In this case only at most one partition can succe
On Jan 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Kaspar Thommen wrote:
> Can someone confirm this? If it's true, what exactly is the purpose of
> offering the if_not_modified flag?
Yes, I confirmed this earlier in this thread:
http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2013-January/
Hi,
Can someone confirm this? If it's true, what exactly is the purpose of
offering the if_not_modified flag?
Kaspar
On Dec 28, 2012 1:51 PM, "Daniil Churikov" wrote:
> Riak doesn't have atomic updates. This if_not_modified does not gives you
> any
> guaran
Justin Sheehy wrote
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> And, doesn't every description of riak behavior have to include the
>> scenario where the network is partitioned and updates are
>> simultaneously performed by entities that can't contact each other?
>> If it weren't for th
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:00 AM, wrote:
> From: Pavan Venkatesh
> With your example of N=3, R=2 and W=2, if two clients are updating at the
> same time to the same object, then it actually depends on the "allow_mult"
> and "last_write_wins" variable.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but the caveat he
On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> And, doesn't every description of riak behavior have to include the
> scenario where the network is partitioned and updates are
> simultaneously performed by entities that can't contact each other?
> If it weren't for that possibility, it could ju
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Elias Levy wrote:
>>>
>> With your example of N=3, R=2 and W=2, if two clients are updating at the
>> same time to the same object, then it actually depends on the "allow_mult"
>> and "last_write_wins" variable.
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the caveat here i
if you want a conditional store, false
otherwise, defaults to false. Returns:This
Pavan
From: qaspar
Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Atomicity of if_not_modified?
Hi,
Can someone confirm this? If it's true, what exactly is the purpose of
offering the if_no
Hi,
Can someone confirm this? If it's true, what exactly is the purpose of
offering the if_not_modified flag?
Kaspar
On Dec 28, 2012 1:51 PM, "Daniil Churikov [via Riak Users]" <
ml-node+s197444n4026431...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> Riak doesn't have atomic updates.
Riak doesn't have atomic updates. This if_not_modified does not gives you any
guaranties. Best way to handle with simultaneously updates is try to
engineer scheme so that only one client makes concurrent updates and in case
of conflict any sibling will be good for you. Another option is try t
Hello,
Say I have N=3, R=2 and W=2, and two clients are simultaneously trying to
update the same object with if_not_modified=true. Is there a possible
scenario where both clients can succeed? If not and if at most one client
succeeds then setting if_not_modified=true would be a way to atomically
Elias,
I'm not convinced that either the quorum or the number of nodes has
any significance to the appearance of that problem. In order for the
if_not_modified to work over PBC, the submitted vector clock must be
equal to the one that Riak finds. As you say, the internal get for
purposes of
Sean,
Thanks for the explanation.
One last follow up. During testing I noticed that when using
if_not_modified against a test cluster with a node using the PB interface
and the Ruby client, if the bucket had an n_val greater than the number of
nodes, the put would fail with 'modified&#
Elias,
The resulting strategy of allow_mult=false and last_write_wins=false
(which is a simplification for developer-friendliness mostly):
1) Resolve differences using the vector clock first.
2) If siblings still exist, return the one with the latest timestamp.
So in a sense, it's a combination
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Elias Levy wrote:
> It's also not clear from the docs what Riak considers the latest value
> to return if allow_mult is false and so is last_write_wins, when you
> have a conflict.
>
Any Basho folks have an answer to this one? How does Riak resolve a
conflict on a
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 6, 2012, at 7:34 PM, Reid Draper wrote:
> Elias,
>
> There's quite a few questions in here, but hopefully I'll answer the meat of
> what you're
> trying to find out. Using `if_not_modified` is _not_ equivalent to a
> distributed at
Elias,
There's quite a few questions in here, but hopefully I'll answer the meat of
what you're
trying to find out. Using `if_not_modified` is _not_ equivalent to a
distributed atomic
compare-and-swap (CAS). As you've correctly identified, concurrent writers
on different
The description of if_not_modified is lacking in the documentation. What
guarantees if_not_modified provides is a question that has been asked in
the list a few times, but for which no satisfactory answer has been given.
Its something I've been wanted answered as well, so I did a bit of di
But then what kind of guarantees gives if_not_modified?
___
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
Hi, Igor.
Riak (quite intentionally, for availability reasons) does not provide any sort
of global transactions or user-exposed locking. One result of this is that you
can't do exactly what you tried -- or least not that simply.
You might be interested in https://github.com/mochi/statebox
-Ju
Hi all. I wrote example for understanding subj, but result is unexpected.
I'm trying to realize simple autoincrement counter.
Where i'm wrong?
My code: https://gist.github.com/1224897
Result look as:
...
reason <<"modified">>
reason <<"modified">>
reason <<"modified">>
reason <<"modified">>
reas
Hi David,
The options "if_not_modified" and "if_none_match" are not available in
0.14.2. They are currently only available on the master branch and will be
released with the next major release.
Thanks,
Dan
Daniel Reverri
Developer Advocate
Basho Technologies, Inc.
d...@bas
25 matches
Mail list logo
