3 ms·
Most of the trade-offs inherent to EPaxos are resolved by Accord[1], the protocol being developed by the Apache Cassandra community (myself included). There's a
by _benedict 5y ago
Most of the trade-offs inherent to EPaxos are resolved by Accord[1], the protocol being developed by the Apache Cassandra community (myself included). There's also Tempo[2] and Caesar[3], amongst others, but they retain some of the trade-offs (and introduce their own). All of these protocols are also capable of supporting multi-shard operations, making them a significant advance over MultiPaxos and Raft.
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/188744725/Accord.pdf https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/188...
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01142 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01142
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03319 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03319
- jimsimmons 5y agoDidn't find any benchmarks in the Accord paper. Do you have pointers?
- _benedict 5y agoIt's still under development, this paper proposes it as an enhancement for Cassandra, so benchmarks are a way off. Given its properties it is likely to have similar performance to Tempo and Caesar for consensus (perhaps lower throughput than Tempo but better latency than Caesar). It is not dissimilar to Calvin for multi-shard execution, trading away the NxN sequencing layer (and poor failure properties) for dependency tracking.
- jimsimmons 5y agoPerfect. Will dig through it! I didn't realise leaderless protocols are less robust and the paper sets up the situation quite well.
- _benedict 5y agoThanks, glad to hear it is helpful. Do let me know if you have any feedback, particularly that might help clarify things.