> If your refuse requests during a partition, you conserve Consistency, and you lose Availability. If you keep accepting requests during a partition, it's the opposite.
I agree
> High latency is considered a partition in CAP.
Can you support this claim? I don't think this is true unless you're specifically talking about high latency between nodes rather than latency between the sender and the system.
>high latency between nodes rather than latency between the sender and the system
Yes, that's what I meant. To clarify, latency between the sender and the system would still not be an availability issue, but it also wouldn't be a partition. It's just out of scope of the CAP theorem. The user might be on a bad mobile connection, but it doesn't impact the distributed system itself.
I think the CAP 12 Years Later [1] paper covers this aspect of what latency means versus a partition. It describes that at some point in time a designer has to decide whether nodes have waited long enough and should return a response (A) or that they should wait until (potentially forever) before a response (C)
I agree
> High latency is considered a partition in CAP.
Can you support this claim? I don't think this is true unless you're specifically talking about high latency between nodes rather than latency between the sender and the system.