What prevents a transaction from being prematurely aborted while there are some intents in flight?
From what I understand, transaction A can still be replicating intents and transaction B, not knowing that coordinator for transaction A is still at work, start a recovery process. This makes transaction A abort which could be prevented by waiting for intents of A to be successfully replicated.
Assuming the owner is smart and does not want anyone to detect that such a thing exists, then no one can. As soon as the owner feels that someone else knows, they will send a message back as a warning and tell themselves to be more careful.
For the world in general, indeed, it is better than having a dead or hardly-maintained project (which needs financial incentives from project owners). Don't you agree?
Actually, Scylla 3.0 is still RC [1] and as mentioned in the article will be released later this month.
And I don't think OLTP/OLAP is about LWTs. I think they are just talking about Scylla's ability to process normal updates in a timely manner while doing OLAP queries.
And you're right about ACID transactions. Multiple rows across two or more partitions can not be updated atomically, even with LWTs, but it is possible for a single partition.
Anemic objects and whether they are harmful or harmless has been debated in software engineering for long.
I find over-relying on encapsulation more harmful than useful nowadays specially if you are going to write scalable software that are inherently distributed. For example, hiding accessing a database behind a simple getter function makes another programmer ignore performance implication and other issues that may arise.
We have confirmed that Comodo submitted Requests for Express Abandonment for all three trademark registration applications in question. We’re happy to see this positive step towards resolution, and will continue to monitor the requests as they make their way through the system.
We’d like to thank our community for their support.
I wonder why nobody considers Ceph[http://ceph.com/] as a proper storage system for micro-service stacks. Maybe because it is mostly considered an infrastructure solution.
Migrating data between hosts and containers for stateful services, data snapshots and file-system isolation can be easily solved for example with Ceph RBDs.
From what I understand, transaction A can still be replicating intents and transaction B, not knowing that coordinator for transaction A is still at work, start a recovery process. This makes transaction A abort which could be prevented by waiting for intents of A to be successfully replicated.