

Potential Consistency - timf
http://theryanking.com/entries/2010/04/29/potential-consistency/

======
cperciva
Summary: Systems designed to be consistent are bad, because if they break,
they will be broken.

At least, that's what I'm parsing this as. The author argues that because
eventually consistent systems are designed to have inconsistency as a normal
event, they can recover from inconsistency -- but this completely ignores the
fact that large consistent systems (or at least, those which are designed
well) also check for inconsistencies so that fail(ing|ed) nodes can be killed.

Maybe I'm missing something: Did anyone see something profound in this
article?

