<story><title>The CAP Theorem FAQ</title><url>http://henryr.github.io/cap-faq/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>nlavezzo</author><text>Glad to see this point at the end:&lt;p&gt;&quot;16. Have I &apos;got around&apos; or &apos;beaten&apos; the CAP theorem?&lt;p&gt;No. You might have designed a system that is not heavily affected by it. That&apos;s good.&quot;&lt;p&gt;Our thoughts on CAP and how we&apos;ve dealt with it while building a distributed truly ACID database might also be interesting to some: &lt;a href=&quot;http://foundationdb.com/white-papers/the-cap-theorem/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://foundationdb.com/white-papers/the-cap-theorem/&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>The CAP Theorem FAQ</title><url>http://henryr.github.io/cap-faq/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>Xodarap</author><text>Pardon my naivete, but why isn&apos;t this obvious?&lt;p&gt;Of course two systems can only be consistent if they can communicate, so you have to either sacrifice availability until the partition is resolved, or give up on consistency.</text></comment>