5 ms·

> If there is clock drift between nodes, then a write W1 against some node may actually "beat" a later write W2 against another node with a slower clock, but in

> If there is clock drift between nodes, then a write W1 against some node may actually "beat" a later write W2 against another node with a slower clock, but in terms of correctness, that doesn't actually matter: the write conflict still resolves deterministically. That sounds like a great way to produce a bad UX where a computer with clock drift doesn't successfully write. With real world clock drift, this can be on the order of years especially on older hardware with a drained button cell on the mainboard or badly implemented GPS clocks. You should also be watching the newest timestamp you got for a key in each data node, and if it receives a user (not peer) set operation, it should take the max between the timestamps. Conflict resolution between peers is unchanged, but you avoid an entire class of bugs that are near-impossible to debug and yet incredibly frustrating. From a quick glance at the readme, it doesn't seem that you do this. If the client timestamps come from your web servers, and they're all on NTP, then it won't be too bad, and the effect will only happen for the maximum NTP offset. EDIT: did some thinking and reread what I wrote

peterbourgon 7y ago
> That sounds like a great way to produce a bad UX where a computer with clock drift doesn't successfully write. With real world clock drift, this can be on the order of years That's true, but any reasonable datacenter operation is going to detect clock skew beyond some tolerance (order of seconds) and either correct it, or decomm the nodes until it can be corrected. Pragmatically, data systems like Roshi have to operate within that tolerance, but don't need to accommodate huge differentials. Or, maybe more accurately stated: it's OK if they have weird apparent user behavior in those circumstances, as long as it doesn't throw the whole system into a logically nondeterministic state. Which is the case here. > If the client timestamps come from your web servers, and they're all on NTP, then it won't be too bad, and the effect will only happen for the maximum NTP offset. That's right. And it's important to zoom out and look at the actual consequences of missed writes at the application layer. This stuff only comes into play when a specific user makes different actions on a specific key, i.e. if a SoundCloud user likes and then immediately un-likes a track. It could be that the like "beats" the un-like, due to clock skew, and when the user reloads the stream, they still see the track with a heart next to it. "That's annoying," they say, and un-like it again, which almost certainly works. No big deal.
- steventhedev 7y ago
  > any reasonable datacenter operation is going to detect clock skew beyond some tolerance (order of seconds) It takes time to recognize such failures. If the clock skew is only off by a few seconds or even minutes, the impact isn't so horrible, but if the clock jumps ahead by 20 years, you've effectively prevented any writes to that key for 20 years. Even if you only consider a few days, that's long enough that it can result in lost business. > logically nondeterministic state timestamps should only be used to tiebreak between logically observed events. You've somehow combined a timestamp field as a tiebreaker, as client data to be stored, and as a request id. If you separate them then adjusting the timestamp as a tiebreaker (along with node and counter) will remain logically consistent. > And it's important to zoom out and look at the actual consequences of missed writes at the application layer Lets. You wrote a distributed data store that can lose writes under certain circumstances. If the UX impact is negligible for you, that's great. However, it may be catastrophic for another use (say storing the latest price read for a stock option). For developers to use your database, it means they need to do an impact analysis for every single use. Just wait until someone decides the API is easy enough to use that they try to put payment data in there.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - peterbourgon 7y ago
    > If the clock skew is only off by a few seconds or even minutes, the impact isn't so horrible, but if the clock jumps ahead by 20 years, you've effectively prevented any writes to that key for 20 years. That's true, but (luckily) it's easy to remediate those objects in the Roshi architecture. > If the UX impact [of lost writes] is negligible for you, that's great. One interesting thing that I've observed about this kind of data system work is that there seems to be a as-of-yet unsolvable tension between "general purpose applicability" and "specific purpose usability". That is, there isn't a way to design a CRDT-based causally-consistent data system which has a general purpose API that consumers can use for a suitably broad set of use cases. Instead, success stories like Roshi seem to require specializing both data semantics and APIs to the specific use cases they target. So, yes, if someone can't tolerate/remediate lost writes due to clock drift, then Roshi is not a suitable system. But, that's fine: data systems don't have to be general purpose to be useful, or to advance the state of the art.

peterbourgon 7y ago

> That sounds like a great way to produce a bad UX where a computer with clock drift doesn't successfully write. With real world clock drift, this can be on the order of years That's true, but any reasonable datacenter operation is going to detect clock skew beyond some tolerance (order of seconds) and either correct it, or decomm the nodes until it can be corrected. Pragmatically, data systems like Roshi have to operate within that tolerance, but don't need to accommodate huge differentials. Or, maybe more accurately stated: it's OK if they have weird apparent user behavior in those circumstances, as long as it doesn't throw the whole system into a logically nondeterministic state. Which is the case here. > If the client timestamps come from your web servers, and they're all on NTP, then it won't be too bad, and the effect will only happen for the maximum NTP offset. That's right. And it's important to zoom out and look at the actual consequences of missed writes at the application layer. This stuff only comes into play when a specific user makes different actions on a specific key, i.e. if a SoundCloud user likes and then immediately un-likes a track. It could be that the like "beats" the un-like, due to clock skew, and when the user reloads the stream, they still see the track with a heart next to it. "That's annoying," they say, and un-like it again, which almost certainly works. No big deal.

steventhedev 7y ago
> any reasonable datacenter operation is going to detect clock skew beyond some tolerance (order of seconds) It takes time to recognize such failures. If the clock skew is only off by a few seconds or even minutes, the impact isn't so horrible, but if the clock jumps ahead by 20 years, you've effectively prevented any writes to that key for 20 years. Even if you only consider a few days, that's long enough that it can result in lost business. > logically nondeterministic state timestamps should only be used to tiebreak between logically observed events. You've somehow combined a timestamp field as a tiebreaker, as client data to be stored, and as a request id. If you separate them then adjusting the timestamp as a tiebreaker (along with node and counter) will remain logically consistent. > And it's important to zoom out and look at the actual consequences of missed writes at the application layer Lets. You wrote a distributed data store that can lose writes under certain circumstances. If the UX impact is negligible for you, that's great. However, it may be catastrophic for another use (say storing the latest price read for a stock option). For developers to use your database, it means they need to do an impact analysis for every single use. Just wait until someone decides the API is easy enough to use that they try to put payment data in there.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- peterbourgon 7y ago
  > If the clock skew is only off by a few seconds or even minutes, the impact isn't so horrible, but if the clock jumps ahead by 20 years, you've effectively prevented any writes to that key for 20 years. That's true, but (luckily) it's easy to remediate those objects in the Roshi architecture. > If the UX impact [of lost writes] is negligible for you, that's great. One interesting thing that I've observed about this kind of data system work is that there seems to be a as-of-yet unsolvable tension between "general purpose applicability" and "specific purpose usability". That is, there isn't a way to design a CRDT-based causally-consistent data system which has a general purpose API that consumers can use for a suitably broad set of use cases. Instead, success stories like Roshi seem to require specializing both data semantics and APIs to the specific use cases they target. So, yes, if someone can't tolerate/remediate lost writes due to clock drift, then Roshi is not a suitable system. But, that's fine: data systems don't have to be general purpose to be useful, or to advance the state of the art.