2011/8/23 Tuure Laurinolli
>
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 17:30 , Mattias Persson wrote:
>
> >> Hm, actually client X can't read anything touched by T from master,
> since
> >> slave A will have taken write locks on things it modifies, and the write
> >> locks are associated with T that never finishes i
2011/8/12 Tuure Laurinolli
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 23:26 , dhsieh wrote:
>
> > According to http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/stable/ha-architecture.html,
> this
> > is my understanding and I would like for confirmation from Neo4j:
> >
> > A slave will handle writes by synchronizing with the master t
On Aug 23, 2011, at 17:30 , Mattias Persson wrote:
>> Hm, actually client X can't read anything touched by T from master, since
>> slave A will have taken write locks on things it modifies, and the write
>> locks are associated with T that never finishes in this example. Still,
>> master's state
> Hm, actually client X can't read anything touched by T from master, since
> slave A will have taken write locks on things it modifies, and the write
> locks are associated with T that never finishes in this example. Still,
> master's state will diverge from cluster state.
>
>
It's ok to read thin
2011/8/15 Tuure Laurinolli
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 20:40 , Tuure Laurinolli wrote:
> >
> >> Updates will however propagate from the master to other slaves
> eventually so
> >> a write from one slave is not immediately visible on all other slaves.
> It sounds like eventual consistency from ma
On Aug 15, 2011, at 18:18 , Tuure Laurinolli wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 20:40 , Tuure Laurinolli wrote:
>>
>>> Updates will however propagate from the master to other slaves eventually so
>>> a write from one slave is not immediately visible on all other slaves.
> It sounds like eventua
On Aug 12, 2011, at 20:40 , Tuure Laurinolli wrote:
>
>> Updates will however propagate from the master to other slaves eventually so
>> a write from one slave is not immediately visible on all other slaves.
It sounds like eventual consistency from master to other slaves. if so, I
am in
On Aug 11, 2011, at 23:26 , dhsieh wrote:
> According to http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/stable/ha-architecture.html, this
> is my understanding and I would like for confirmation from Neo4j:
>
> A slave will handle writes by synchronizing with the master to preserve
> consistency.
>>> It sounds l
g out details about Neo4j HA member nodes voting
>> quorum & arbitrater setup (assuming using zookeeper)
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/Neo4j-Replication-corner-cases-tp3246146p3247312.html
Sent from the Neo4j Community Discussi
Hello,
I read through the HA/replication documentation at
http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/stable/ha.html but a few question about possible
failure modes remains: Can a HA transaction fail after it's committed on
master? Consider the following: client C1 commits transaction T through slave
S1, wh
10 matches
Mail list logo
