# Observers participant node is down

**URL:** <https://forum.canton.network/t/observers-participant-node-is-down/5811>\
**Category:** App Development\
**Created:** [December 13, 2022, 3:01pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/observers-participant-node-is-down/5811 "2022-12-13T15:01:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shaul](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/shaul/32/117_2.png) [@Shaul](https://forum.canton.network/u/Shaul)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 2022, 11:02pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/observers-participant-node-is-down/5811/5 "2022-12-14T23:02:07Z")

</div>

I think of `signatory` as having a strict consistency model and `observer` as eventually consistent.

Or in [CAP theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem) terms, we always want Availability, so `signatory` gives you Consistency but isn’t Partition-tolerant, and `observer` is Partition-tolerant but not Consistent.

Even though there are no strict consistency guarantees on `observer` you will get confirmation from their node eventually via the ACS commitments (see my [forum question on this topic](https://discuss.daml.com/t/what-shared-state-do-acs-commitments-cover/5012))

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.canton.network/t/observers-participant-node-is-down/5811)._