Right. In my case, I require guaranteed consistent results for critical
cluster state, and use (slightly modified) Paxos for that. For file data,
I leverage that cluster state to still maintain perfect consistency in
most failure scenarios, while also degrading gracefully to a read/write
access to a single replica.
When problem situations arise (e.g., replicating to A+B, A fails,
read/write to just B for a while, B fails, A recovers), an administrator
can step in and explicitly indicate we want to relax consistency to
continue (e.g., if B is found to be unsalvageable and a stale A is the
best we can do).
Anything that silently relaxes consistency like that scares me. Does
anybody really do that in practice?
sage
--