|
|
|
|
|
|
by kchodorow
5516 days ago
|
|
|
I interpreted "what is sacrificed?" as asking which letter of CAP MongoDB was giving up. Coda's article actually explains exactly the tradeoffs MongoDB makes for CP: ------------------- Choosing Consistency Over Availability If a system chooses to provide Consistency over Availability in the presence of partitions (again, read: failures), it will preserve the guarantees of its atomic reads and writes by refusing to respond to some requests. It may decide to shut down entirely (like the clients of a single-node data store), refuse writes (like Two-Phase Commit), or only respond to reads and writes for pieces of data whose "master" node is inside the partition component (like Membase). This is perfectly reasonable. There are plenty of things (atomic counters, for one) which are made much easier (or even possible) by strongly consistent systems. They are a perfectly valid type of tool for satisfying a particular set of business requirements. ------------------- |
|
|