11–20 of 319 posts
I'm the author of that post. I'm happy to respond to comments on the post on this thread for the next several hours. You can also leave comments on the post itself, and I will respond there at any time.
This post doesn't establish any "controversy" about Spanner's design decision. It only says that it requires special hardware, which other systems attempt to emulate despite not having this specialized hardware.
To call this decision "controversial" I think one would need to show that it has some significant problem in the environment it was designed for.
In case you're wondering : this is a very worthwhile read.
Too many false claims for my taste. Especially wrt to eventual consistency and consistency guarantees. Also some misinterpretation of CAP theorem to fit the narrative. Very typical FaunaDB promotional post.
> We will trace the failure to guarantee consistency to a controversial design decision made by Spanner that has been tragically and imperfectly emulated in other systems. This post doesn't establish any "controversy" about Spanner's design decision. It only says that it requires special hardware, which other systems attempt to emulate despite not having this specialized hardware. To call this decision "controversial…
> We will trace the failure to guarantee consistency to a controversial design decision made by Spanner that has been tragically and imperfectly emulated in other systems. This post doesn't establish any "controversy" about Spanner's design decision. It only says that it requires special hardware, which other systems attempt to emulate despite not having this specialized hardware. To call this decision "controversial…
I'm the author of that post. I'm happy to respond to comments on the post on this thread for the next several hours. You can also leave comments on the post itself, and I will respond there at any time.
I wonder if any of the aforementioned systems (Calvin/Spanner/YugaByte) that can opportunistically commit transactions and detect issues and roll back + retry all within the scope of the RPC so it can still conform to linearisability requirement?
I'm the author of that post. I'm happy to respond to comments on the post on this thread for the next several hours. You can also leave comments on the post itself, and I will respond there at any time.
Do these concerns also apply in an HTAP or OLAP context e.g. systems like Cloudera's Kudu, which uses Hybrid Time? Or maybe Volt which you also worked on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many false claims for my taste. Especially wrt to eventual consistency and consistency guarantees. Also some misinterpretation of CAP theorem to fit the narrative. Very typical FaunaDB promotional post.
Without some description of what "false claims" and "misinterpretation" you mean, this is a content-free post.
"This is good."
"No, it is bad, in these particular areas."
[EDIT:] Granted, the post could still be wrong, but ISTM accusations of content-freedom tend to be projections.
I'm the author of that post. I'm happy to respond to comments on the post on this thread for the next several hours. You can also leave comments on the post itself, and I will respond there at any time.