Talk given at Papers We Love, London, UK on 8 July 2015. http://martin.kleppmann.com/2015/07/08/attiya-welch-at-papers-we-love.html
Papers We Love is a meetup for discussing academic computer science papers. The paper I'm presenting here is by Hagit Attiya and Jennifer L Welch: “Sequential Consistency versus Linearizability,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), volume 12, number 2, pages 91–122, May 1994. doi:10.1145/176575.176576, http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.852/01/papers/p91-attiya.pdf
Abstract of my talk:
An often-cited constraint on distributed database design is the CAP theorem, an impossibility result in distributed systems. It states that in a linearizable database, if the network is interrupted, some nodes cannot respond to requests. Although being able to tolerate network faults is important, the performance and response times of a database are often even more important, and CAP says nothing about those. It’s also a pretty boring theorem.
Attiya and Welch’s paper, which we’ll discuss in this session, is vastly more interesting. It also proves an impossibility result, but it’s about response times: on a network where the uncertainty of packet delay is u, there is no algorithm that implements linearizability with read requests faster than u/4 and write requests faster than u/2. On a network where packet delay is highly variable (like many computer networks), a linearizable database is therefore inevitably going to be slow.
The paper then goes on to compare linearizability to sequential consistency (a weaker consistency guarantee), and shows that sequential consistency can be significantly faster.
This is a theoretical paper, but its applications to practical systems are very real. Its proofs are elegant and not too difficult to follow. It was almost a decade ahead of the CAP theorem. And moreover, it has no male co-authors. What’s not to love about it?
Abstract of the paper:
The power of two well-known consistency conditions for shared-memory multiprocessors, sequential consistency and linearizability, is compared. The cost measure studied is the worst-case response time in distributed implementations of virtual shared memory supporting one of the two conditions. Three types of shared-memory objects are considered: read/write objects, FIFO queues, and stacks. If clocks are only approximately synchronized (or do not exist), then for all three object types it is shown that linearizability is more expensive than sequential consistency: We present upper bounds for sequential consistency and larger lower bounds for linearizability. We show that, for all three data types, the worst-case response time is very sensitive to the assumptions that are made about the timing information available to the system. Under the strong assumption that processes have perfectly synchronized clocks, it is shown that sequential consistency and linearizability are equally costly: We present upper bounds for linearizability and matching lower bounds for sequential consistency. The upper bounds are shown by presenting algorithms that use atomic broadcast in a modular fashion. The lower-bound proofs for the approximate case use the technique of “shifting,” first introduced for studying the clock synchronization problem.
ept
tsantalis
yumulab
jjzhu
gpeyre
kmorita1111
trafficbrain
ryomasumura
harukakiyohara_
daimoriwaki
tanichu
atsumoto
philhawksworth
philnash
zenorocha
tmm1
iamctodd
holman
shpigford
thekraken
hannesfritz
quramy
robhawkes
nonsquared
