3 ms·
For some reason, people considering PAXOS/RAFT don't tend to consider CRDT/OT synchronization. I think this is a big oversight. We should start considering CR
by toomim 4y ago
For some reason, people considering PAXOS/RAFT don't tend to consider CRDT/OT synchronization. I think this is a big oversight.
We should start considering CRDT/OT/VCS/Diffsync approaches to distributed systems as well. They present a very nice alternative approach: whereas PAXOS/RAFT implement a consistent "distributed state machine", a CRDT, OT, VCS, or Diffsync system implements consistent "distributed state", upon which one can build a machine as a function of the state.
This latter approach is actually simpler, IMO, because it encapsulates all the challenge of distributed consistency within a smaller subset of the problem — state synchronization. This makes it more generally re-usable. When you create a system, you can just use an off-the-shelf library & algorithm to synchronize your data over a network, and then write synchronous functions on top of that to represent the system you want, however you want, without having to understand PAXOS/RAFT.
- diroussel 4y agoWould this approach be resistant to a rogue actor. If one actor bad data would all the other actors still be able to reach consensus? Paxos is complicated, but it’s well studied and proven.
- suchire 4y agoNeither OT/CRDT nor Paxos/Raft are meant to resist rogue actors. They are not Byzantine fault tolerant.