skip to main content
10.1145/2767386.2767419acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Limitations of Highly-Available Eventually-Consistent Data Stores

Published:21 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern replicated data stores aim to provide high availability, by immediately responding to client requests, often by implementing objects that expose concurrency. Such objects, for example, multi-valued registers (MVRs), do not have sequential specifications. This paper explores a recent model for replicated data stores that can be used to precisely specify causal consistency for such objects, and liveness properties like eventual consistency, without revealing details of the underlying implementation. The model is used to prove the following results: An eventually consistent data store implementing MVRs cannot satisfy a consistency model strictly stronger than observable causal consistency (OCC). OCC is a model somewhat stronger than causal consistency, which captures executions in which client observations can use causality to infer concurrency of operations. This result holds under certain assumptions about the data store. Under the same assumptions, an eventually consistent and causally consistent replicated data store must send messages of unbounded size: If s objects are supported by n replicas, then, for every k > 1, there is an execution in which an Ω({n,s} k)-bit message is sent.

References

  1. The Apache Cassandra Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Ahamad, G. Neiger, J. E. Burns, P. Kohli, and P. W. Hutto. Causal memory: definitions, implementation, and programming. Dist. Comp., 9(1), 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. B. Alpern and F. B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Inf. Process. Lett., 21:181--185, October 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. P. Bailis, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. The Potential Dangers of Causal Consistency and an Explicit Solution. In SoCC '12, pages 22:1--22:7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Bailis and A. Ghodsi. Eventual consistency today: Limitations, extensions, and beyond. Commun. ACM, 56(5):55--63, May 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Bailis, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Bolt-on Causal Consistency. In SIGMOD '13, pages 761--772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Bieniusa, M. Zawirski, N. Pregui\c ca, M. Shapiro, C. Baquero, V. Balegas, and S. Duarte. An Optimized Conflict-free Replicated Set. Technical Report RR-8083, INRIA, Oct. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. E. A. Brewer. Towards robust distributed systems. In PODC '00, page 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Burckhardt. Principles of Eventual Consistency. Found. and Trends in Programming Languages, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Burckhardt, A. Gotsman, H. Yang, and M. Zawirski. Replicated data types: Specification, verification, optimality. In POPL '14, pages 271--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Burckhardt, D. Leijen, J. Protzenko, and M. Fahndrich. Global Sequence Protocol: A Robust Abstraction for Replicated Shared State. In ECOOP '15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. Charron-Bost. Concerning the Size of Logical Clocks in Distributed Systems. Inf. Process. Lett., 39(1):11--16, July 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. DeCandia, D. Hastorun, M. Jampani, G. Kakulapati, A. Lakshman, A. Pilchin, S. Sivasubramanian, P. Vosshall, and W. Vogels. Dynamo: Amazon's Highly Available Key-value Store. In SOSP '07, pages 205--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Du, S. Elnikety, A. Roy, and W. Zwaenepoel. Orbe: Scalable causal consistency using dependency matrices and physical clocks. In SOCC '13, pages 11:1--11:14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Du, C. Iorgulescu, A. Roy, and W. Zwaenepoel. GentleRain: Cheap and Scalable Causal Consistency with Physical Clocks. In SoCC '14, pages 4:1--4:13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Du, C. Iorgulescu, A. Roy, and W. Zwaenepoel. Closing The Performance Gap between Causal Consistency and Eventual Consistency. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Principles and Practice of Eventual Consistency, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. C. J. Fidge. Partial orders for parallel debugging. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 24(1):183--194, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Gilbert and N. Lynch. Brewer's conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News, 33(2):51--59, June 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 12:463--492, July 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. Lamport. Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Commun. ACM, 21(7):558--565, July 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. W. Lloyd, M. J. Freedman, M. Kaminsky, and D. G. Andersen. Don't Settle for Eventual: Scalable Causal Consistency for Wide-area Storage with COPS. In SOSP '11, pages 401--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. W. Lloyd, M. J. Freedman, M. Kaminsky, and D. G. Andersen. Stronger Semantics for Low-Latency Geo-Replicated Storage. In NSDI '13, pages 313--328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. Mahajan. Highly Available Storage with Minimal Trust. PhD thesis, The University Of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P. Mahajan, L. Alvisi, and M. Dahlin. Consistency, Availability, and Convergence. Technical Report TR-11--22, The University of Texas at Austin, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. F. Mattern. Virtual time and global states of distributed systems. In M. Consard and P. Quinton, editors, Parallel and Distributed Algorithm, pages 215--226. North-Holland, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Perrin, A. Mostéfaoui, and C. Jard. Brief Announcement: Update Consistency in Partitionable Systems. In DISC '14, pages 546--547.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Shapiro, N. Preguica, C. Baquero, and M. Zawirski. A comprehensive study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types. Technical Report RR-7506, INRIA, Jan. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Shapiro, N. Preguiça, C. Baquero, and M. Zawirski. Conflict-free Replicated Data Types. In SSS '11, pages 386--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. W. Vogels. Eventually consistent. Commun. ACM, 52(1):40--44, Jan. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. M. Zawirski, A. Bieniusa, V. Balegas, S. Duarte, C. Baquero, M. Shapiro, and N. Preguica. SwiftCloud: Fault-Tolerant Geo-Replication Integrated all the Way to the Client Machine. Technical Report RR-8347, INRIA, Aug. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Limitations of Highly-Available Eventually-Consistent Data Stores

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        PODC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
        July 2015
        508 pages
        ISBN:9781450336178
        DOI:10.1145/2767386

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 July 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        PODC '15 Paper Acceptance Rate45of191submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate740of2,477submissions,30%

        Upcoming Conference

        PODC '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader