openstack team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Swift Consistency Guarantees?
On 31/01/2012, at 4:45 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> Mark Nottingham asked:
>> Why not just use
>> Cache-Control: no-cache?
>> That way, intervening caches will do the right thing too...
> Even with no caching anywhere you still have N replicas (typically three) that will be updated in an arbitrary order,
> and clients that read from any one of those replicas.
Right.. all that I'm saying is that the semantics of CC: no-cache are effectively the same as X-Newest, and have the nice side effect of busting any intermediary caches along the way.
> Unless you implement a draconian global locking scheme there is nothing you can do to prevent a client from reading
> a copy that has just been rendered obsolete by another client completing the edit of the (N+1)/2th replica.
> If the goal is to validate with all N servers then this should be a special transaction. The benefits of caching should remain
> In place for typical reads.
and they will, if you don't use CC: no-cache on them.
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/