4 ms·
"In sum, something "fundamental" changes when you want to go fault-tolerant and tolerate node failure in an asynchronous system. When you combine faults and ful
by pkolaczk 9y ago
"In sum, something "fundamental" changes when you want to go fault-tolerant and tolerate node failure in an asynchronous system. When you combine faults and full-asynchrony, you get the FLP impossibility result. That means you lose progress! That is why Paxos does not guarantee making progress under a full asynchronous model with a crash failure."
This is unclear to me. Egalitarian Paxos guarantees progress under a full asynchronous model and doesn't have the dueling leaders problem. So this looks like a weakness of standard Paxos itself, not a fundamental problem.
- matthelb 9y agoThough it might not be explicitly stated in the paper, EPaxos has the same liveness guarantee as all other consensus protocols: commands will eventually commit if a long enough period of synchrony occurs. As the author of this post notes, this is a fundamental limitation of the specification of the consensus problem - no protocol can get around the limitation while solving consensus by definition.