A well written article by FoundationDB’s founder Dave Rosenthal about eventual consistency:
The concept of eventual consistency comes up frequently in the context of
distributed databases. Leading NoSQL databases like Riak, Couchbase, and
DynamoDB provide client applications with a guarantee of “eventual
consistency”. Others, like MongoDB and Cassandra are eventually consistent
in some configurations.
I could ignore some smart word choices and agree that dealing with eventual consistency is not a familiar area to many developers.
What I cannot agree with though, are weak statements like (what does unreliable writes mean?) :
Eventual consistency pushes the pain and confusion of inconsistent reads and unreliable writes onto software developers.
And definitely I cannot agree with unproved statements used solely to prove your point:
A system that keeps some, but not all, of its nodes able
to read and write during a partition is not available in
the CAP sense but is still available in the sense that
clients can talk to the nodes that are still connected. In
this way fault-tolerant databases with no single point of
failure can be built without resorting to eventual
By changing the definitions, you are not proving a theorem is incorrect. Nor do you prove a different theorem.
Original title and link: The demise of eventual consistency? ( ©myNoSQL)