Chris Travers wrote:
> 1) Efficiency of network throughput
> 2) Tolerance to attempts at repeat transactions before replication
> (emptying an account multiple times)
> 3) Availability of a transaction.
We ended up having to give up #1. It's possible to have our transactions
routed to multiple servers before it becomes a final transaction. User1
might request a payment on ServerA. User2 then marks the payment as
approved on ServerB. ServerC is authoritative and checks the bank/budget
balances before posting as final. After each of these steps requires
replication of the latest changes to all other servers. (In theory, the
first 2 steps only require replication to the authoritative server but
we do so anyways so all servers can act as backups for each other --
pending transactions still need to be restored in case of total DB failure.)
There's definitely a delay in terms of getting from point A to point Z;
duplicate servers. But there's guaranteed financial integrity, users can
connect to any server the load balancer picks and no server requires any
other server/connection to be up for individual user tranactions to occur.
