Definitions
This article targets applications that adopt weaker consistency in large-scale distributed systems in favor of higher availability and better performance.
Overview
In light of the conflicting goals of low latency, high availability, and partition tolerance (Brewer 2000; Gilbert and Lynch 2002), many wide-area services and applications choose to renounce strong consistency in favor of eventual (Vogels 2008) or causal consistency (Ahamad et al. 1994): COPS (Lloyd et al. 2011), Dynamo (DeCandia et al. 2007), Riak (Basho 2017), and Voldemort (2012) are among the many services (Lloyd et al. 2011) that provide a form of weak consistency to applications. Applications that make this decision are often referred to as ALPS applications (availability, low latency, partition tolerance, and high scalability). Distributed ALPS applications, however, are hard to reason about: eventual consistency provides no guarantee...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ahamad M, Neiger G, Burns J, Kohli P, Hutto P (1994) Causal memory: definitions, implementation and programming. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology
Apache (2017) Cassandra. http://cassandra.apache.org/
Bailis P, Fekete A, Ghodsi A, Hellerstein JM, Stoica I (2012) The potential dangers of causal consistency and an explicit solution. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM symposium on cloud computing, SOCC ’12, pp 22:1–22:7. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2391229.2391251
Basho (2017) Riak. http://basho.com/products/
Berenson H, Bernstein P, Gray J, Melton J, O’Neil E, O’Neil P (1995) A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels. In: ACM SIGMOD record, vol 24, pp 1–10
Brewer EA (2000) Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing, PODC ’00. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/343477.343502
Cooper BF, Ramakrishnan R, Srivastava U, Silberstein A, Bohannon P, Jacobsen HA, Puz N, Weaver D, Yerneni R (2008) PNUTS: Yahoo!’s hosted data serving platform. Proc VLDB Endow 1(2):1277–1288
Crooks N, Pu Y, Estrada N, Gupta T, Alvisi L, Clement A (2016) Tardis: a branch-and-merge approach to weak consistency. In: Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on management of data, SIGMOD ’16. ACM, New York, pp 1615–1628. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2882903.2882951
DeCandia G, Hastorun D, Jampani M, Kakulapati G, Lakshman A, Pilchin A, Sivasubramanian S, Vosshall P, Vogels W (2007) Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proceedings of 21st ACM symposium on operating systems principles, SOSP ’07, pp 205–220. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1294261.1294281
Du J, Iorgulescu C, Roy A, Zwaenepoel W (2014) Gentlerain: cheap and scalable causal consistency with physical clocks. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on cloud computing, SOCC ’14, pp 4:1–4:13. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2670979.2670983
Gilbert S, Lynch N (2002) Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2):51–59. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/564585.564601
Git (2017) Git: the fast version control system. http://git-scm.com
Lloyd W, Freedman MJ, Kaminsky M, Andersen DG (2011) Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on operating systems principles, SOSP ’11, pp 401–416. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2043556.2043593
Lloyd W, Freedman MJ, Kaminsky M, Andersen DG (2013) Stronger semantics for low-latency geo-replicated storage. In: Proceedings of the 10th USENIX symposium on networked systems design and implementation, NSDI ’13, pp 313–328. https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi13/technical-sessions/presentation/lloyd
Mahajan P, Setty S, Lee S, Clement A, Alvisi L, Dahlin M, Walfish M (2011) Depot: cloud storage with minimal trust. ACM Trans Comput Syst 29(4):12
Olson MA, Bostic K, Seltzer M (1999) Berkeley DB. In: Proceedings of the annual conference on USENIX annual technical conference, ATEC ’99. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1268708.1268751
Shapiro M, Preguiça N, Baquero C, Zawirski M (2011) A comprehensive study of convergent and commutative replicated data types. Rapport de recherche RR-7506, INRIA
Sovran Y, Power R, Aguilera MK, Li J (2011) Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on operating systems principles, SOSP ’11, pp 385–400. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2043556.2043592
Terry DB, Theimer MM, Petersen K, Demers AJ, Spreitzer MJ, Hauser CH (1995) Managing update conflicts in Bayou, a weakly connected replicated storage system. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM symposium on operating systems principles, SOSP ’95, pp 172–182. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/224056.224070
Thomas RH (1979) A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Trans Database Syst 4(2):180–209. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/320071.320076
Vogels W (2008) Eventually consistent. Queue 6(6): 14–19. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1466443.1466448
Voldemort (2012) Project Voldemort: a distributed database. Online, http://project-voldemort.com/
Wikipedia (2017) Wikipedia: conflicting sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Crooks, N. (2018). TARDiS: A Branch-and-Merge Approach to Weak Consistency. In: Sakr, S., Zomaya, A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Big Data Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_160-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_160-1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63962-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63962-8
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MathematicsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering