- System setup
- Multiple data centers, separated by long distance links
- Each data center has many nodes, storage state is fully replicated at each data center
- Desired performance:
- Writes finish w/o waiting for remote sites (async. replication)
- Reads contact local site only
What’s causal consistency?
- Systems that obey the following set of partial orders
- if op1 and op2 are in the single thread of execution and op1 is issued before op2, then op1 –> op2. (On client1, op1: creates pid1, op2: adds pid1 to album aid. All node s see the effect of op2 after op1)
- If op2 reads the result written by op1, then op1–> op2 (On client1, op1: adds pid1 to album aid On client 2, op2: reads pid1 in album)
- if op1–>op2, op2–>op3, then op1–>op3 (On client 1, op1: adds pid1 to album aid On client 2, op2: reads pid1 in album, op3: deletes pid1. All nodes see op1—>op2—>op3, i.e. pid1 is deleted)
- partition key-space among nodes
- explicitly keep track explicit dependencies (partial orders) for each write
- Site A performs a write, replicates it together with the dependencies to another site B
- Site B waits until the write’s dependencies are satisfied in B before committing the write.
- put(key,value,context); //put’s dependencies are set by context, new dependency includes the new put version.
- value = get(key,context); //add dependencies of get to context
- example ``` Client 1: put(x,1) —> put(y,2) ctx1:x1 store (x1) with y2, ctx=x1,y2Client 2: get(y)=2 –> put(x,4) ctx2:x1,y=2 store (y2), ctx2:x=4,y=2Client 3: get(x)=4) –> put(z,5) ctx3:x=4,y=2 store (x=4,y=2), ctx
- Site A replicate y2 with dependency (x1) to site B.
- Site B performs a dependency check locally to wait for x1 to commit before committing y2.
Anomalies under causal consistency
- – write-write conflict
- – do not capture causality caused by external communication. I posted a picture, call my friend to check it out.