On 10/06/2010 04:20 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Ending the wait state does not cause data loss. It puts you at *risk* of
> data loss, which is a different thing entirely.
These kind of risk scenarios is what sync replication is all about. A
minimum guarantee that doesn't hold in face of the first few failures
(see Jeff's argument) isn't worth a dime.
Keep in mind that upon failure, the other nodes presumably get more
load. As has been seen with RAID, that easily leads to subsequent
failures. Sync rep needs to be able to protect against that *as well*.
> If you want to avoid data loss you use N+k redundancy and get on with
> life, rather than sitting around waiting.
With that notion, I'd argue that quorum_commit needs to be set to
exactly k, because any higher value would only cost performance without
any useful benefit.
But if I want at least k ACKs and if I think it's worth the performance
penalty that brings during normal operation, I want that guarantee to
hold true *especially* in case of an emergency.
If availability is more important, you need to increase N and make sure
enough of these (asynchronously) replicated nodes stay up. Increase k
(thus quorum commit) for a stronger durability guarantee.
> Putting in a feature for people that choose k=0 seems wasteful to me,
> since they knowingly put themselves at risk in the first place.
Given the above logic, k=0 equals to completely async replication. Not
sure what's wrong about that.
Regards
Markus Wanner