It's true that Cassandra has "tunable consistency", but if eventual consistency is not sufficient for most of your use cases, Cassandra becomes much less attractive. Am I wrong?
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 11:32 -0500, Simon Reavely wrote: > > As a cassandra user I think the key sentence for this community is: > > "We found Cassandra's eventual consistency model to be a difficult > > pattern to reconcile for our new Messages infrastructure." > > In my experience, "we needed strong consistency", in conversations like > these amounts to hand waving. It's the fastest way to shut down that > part of the discussion without having said anything at all. > > > I think it would be useful to find out more about this statement from > > Kannan and the facebook team. Does anyone have any contacts in the > > Facebook team? > > Good luck. Facebook is notoriously tight-lipped about such things. > > > My goal here is to understand usage patterns and whether or not the > > Cassandra community can learn from this decision; maybe even > > understand whether the Cassandra roadmap should be influenced by this > > decision to address a target user base. Of course we might also > > conclude that its just "not a Cassandra use-case"! > > Understanding is a laudable goal, just try to avoid drawing conclusions > (and call out others who are). > > <rant> > This is usually the point where a frenzy kicks in and folks assume that > the Smart Guys at Facebook know something they don't, something that > would invalidate their decision if they'd only known. > > I seriously doubt they've uncovered some Truth that would fundamentally > alter the reasoning behind *my* decision to use Cassandra, and so I plan > to continue as I always have. Following relevant research and > development, collecting experience (my own and others), and applying it > to the problems I face. > </rant> > > -- > Eric Evans > eev...@rackspace.com > >
