alt Hacker NewsI think we should stop calling these systems eventually consistent. They are actually never consistent. If the system is complex enough and there are always incoming changes, there is never a point in time in these "eventually consistent systems" that they are in consistent state. The problem of inconsistency is pushed to the users of the data.
Replies
They eventually become consistent from the frame of a single write. They would become consistent if you stopped writes, so they will eventually get there
> They are actually never consistent
I don't see it this way. Let's take a simple example - banks. Your employer sends you the salary from another bank. The transfer is (I'd say) eventually consistent - at some point, you WILL get the money. So how it can be "never consistent"?
Someone else stated this implicitly, but with your reasoning no complex system is ever consistent with ongoing changes. From the perspective of one of many concurrent writers outside of the database there’s no consistency they observe. Within the database there could be pending writes in flight that haven’t been persisted yet.
That’s why these consistency models are defined from the perspective of “if you did no more writes after write X, what happens”.