3 ms·

I wrote a little simulation. Paxos rarely gets stuck with a small number of proposers/acceptors, but jams up solid once you get to, I forget, 10 or 20. Here it

I wrote a little simulation. Paxos rarely gets stuck with a small number of proposers/acceptors, but jams up solid once you get to, I forget, 10 or 20. Here it is: https://www.yodaiken.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/paxos.ptpx_.ppxt_.png https://www.yodaiken.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/paxos.pt... Embarrassingly badly written Lua code for the simulator https://github.com/yodaikenv/consensus https://github.com/yodaikenv/consensus The key to me is that once you accept the need for leader election, you have much simpler alternatives and can toss away the rest of paxos.

ahelwer 7y ago
This is authentically a very interesting simulation and I would be interesting to see a writeup if you have one. I will say that you only have multiple proposers if the proposers cannot talk to one another, as otherwise they would be silenced by any simple leader election protocol (heartbeats + node rank, etc.) It's true that the leader election protocol is not part of paxos per se but all implementations will have one, and the protocol livelocks in the unusual case where there's an enduring network partition and the multiple proposers are sending messages with specific timing. Edit: I took a look at your post[0] and it is interesting. I'll take a look at CM. [0] https://www.yodaiken.com/papers-and-talks/distributed-consensus-paxos-raft-etc/ https://www.yodaiken.com/papers-and-talks/distributed-consen...