|
|
|
|
|
|
by lucio
2901 days ago
|
|
|
>Does this mean that Spanner is a CA system
as defined by CAP? The short answer is “no” technically, but “yes” in effect and its users can and do
assume CA. >The purist answer is “no” because partitions can happen and in fact have happened at Google, and during
(some) partitions, Spanner chooses C and forfeits A. It is technically a CP system. We explore the impact
of partitions below. ... >Conclusion >--------- >Spanner reasonably claims to be an “effectively CA” system despite operating over a wide area, as it is
always consistent and achieves greater than 5 9s availability. From the paper |
|
|