RE: CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?)

it in any real environments). Stan From: joseheitor Sent: 24 декабря 2018 г. 18:40 To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?) Guys, thank you both for your informative and helpful responses. I have explicitly configured the cache-template with the additional property

Re: CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?)

Guys, thank you both for your informative and helpful responses. I have explicitly configured the cache-template with the additional property: And have observed the following behaviour: 1. [OK] Attempting to get a specific record(s) which resides in a lost partition does indeed return an

Re: CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?)

Hi Jose, First of you refer to a slide about Data Center Replication, an commercial feature of GridGain. Ignite does not provide such feature. Also, SQL and Cache API could behave different. You can check how Cache API shows itself in your experiments. CacheAtomicityMode and PartitionLossPolicy

Re: CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?)

When the cluster loses all copies of a partition the behavior is defined by PartitionLossPolicy. The current default is IGNORE which is indeed an AP rather than CP option. You can set it to READ_WRITE_SAFE or READ_ONLY_SAFE to get the CP behavior. I would also strongly advise to do so if you

CAP Theorem (CP? or AP?)

In this GridGain presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8BFLDfOdy8=1806s Valentin Kulichenko explains the CAP theorem and states that Apache Ignite is designed to favour Strong-Consistency (CP) over High-Availability (AP). However,