<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Mark Delany <<a href="mailto:g2x@juliet.emu.st" class="">g2x@juliet.emu.st</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""></div></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">But for intolerant systems like banking, co-ordinating consistent<br class="">updates across a federation of systems is a tough problem. This is why<br class="">banks will pay for a 100% infrastructure redundancy to avoid<br class="">complexity and facebook will pay for 11% redundancy to avoid cost.<br class="">tl;dr idle infrastructure may not be your biggest cost.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Paxos handles the exact situation at issue: transactional integrity in the face of a network partition when nodes can autonomously recover from failures in inconsistent states.</div><div class=""><a href="https://www.quora.com/Distributed-Systems-What-is-a-simple-explanation-of-the-Paxos-algorithm" class="">https://www.quora.com/Distributed-Systems-What-is-a-simple-explanation-of-the-Paxos-algorithm</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It also isn’t particularly performant, especially if there’s a lot of RTT between nodes. But there are ways around that too.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - mark</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>