Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin



Jason from Elastic here.

It is indeed good reading, but as you say, old. Since then, we have invested tremendously in the [data replication][0] and [cluster coordination][1] subsystems, to the point that we have closed the issues that Kyle had opened. We have fixed all known issues related to divergence and lost updates of documents, and now have [formal models of our core algorithms][2]. The remaining issue along these lines is that of [dirty reads][3], which we [document][4] and have plans to address (sorry, no timeline, it's a matter of prioritization). Please do check out our [resiliency status page][5] if you're interested in the following these topics more closely.

Thanks for all of the feedback in this entire thread.

[0]: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/10708 [1]: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/32006 [2]: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-formal-models [3]: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/52400 [4]: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/7.6/... [5]: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/resiliency/cur...

Disclaimer: I am an engineer on the Elasticsearch team; I welcome any and all feedback.


I'm always happier when I see a follow up analysis by the Jepsen team, as a third party verification that the issues have been fixed and no major new ones introduced. Any chance Elastic is going to contract out to them for a follow up?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: