The answer of Benjamin is very right. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Benjamin Black <b...@b3k.us> wrote:
> You constructed a pathological case and then got confused at the result. > > Consider instead a realistic case: RF=3, CL=QUORUM. Writes should go > to all of A, B, and C. B is down when the write request arrives, so > does not acknowledge the it. A and C acknowledge the write. Since > quorum is achieved, success is returned to the client and a hint for B > is written to A (since A is already a replica and since 0.6 hints go > to existing replicas rather than non-replica nodes). When B comes > back up, it requests hints, A sends the missed write, bringing B back > in sync. > > > b > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:04 AM, ChingShen <chingshenc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If so, when does hinted handoff work? > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Anty <anty....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM, ChingShen <chingshenc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Please consider this case: (RF=1, CL=ONE) > >>> > >>> 1. I have A, B and C nodes. > >>> 2. A node is a coordinator node, it sends a request to B node to do > >>> write operation. > >>> 3. B node is down during write operation, so return failure message > to > >>> client, and write a hint to C node. > >> > >> I think node A will return failure message to client. > >> and will not write a hint to C node. > >> > >>> > >>> 4. B node comes back up, then C node forwards the data to it. > >>> 5. B node own data right now, although the write operation is > failure. > >>> > >>> Correctly? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> Shen > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best Regards > >> Anty Rao > > > > > > >
