On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:51 PM, jimtronic <jimtro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems to violate the strong consistency model doesn't it? If a write
> doesn't succeed at a replica, it shouldn't succeed anywhere.

We don't provide a strong consistency model - we provide an eventual 
consistency model overall - though you can do some things to get other 
consistency levels for certain things.

If a write doesn't succeed on a replica, I told you, that replica is either 
dead or asked to recover. The update stays in the cluster, so there is no need 
to roll it back.

You need to figure out why the updates failed on the replicas, but the replicas 
were responding to other requests. That doesn't just happen out of the blue 
with no logs about how generally.


- Mark

Reply via email to