[jbellis]

When I'm learning about a new architecture, I like to take the position of, "let's assume the authors aren't idiots. If they're not, why would they have designed things this way?"

With that in mind, let me pose this question to you.

Is using a Dynamo architecture (http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/10/amazons_dynamo.h...) for S3 "irresponsible" of Amazon?

I submit that by this point, Amazon (among others) has convincingly demonstrated that this approach can indeed achieve a high degree of reliability.

If you agree, then I suggest that you read through the Dynamo and Eventually Consistent papers again with the "let's assume these people aren't idiots" approach, and see if you can spot what this architecture offers to achieve a similar goal to your "wait for replication to catch up" design.

[grout]

You're not idiots, and neither are Amazon. But using a Dynamo style design safely requires overprovisioning and performance loss. W=1 speed is your bait; reality is the switch.