The important parts: > The data is assumed to be randomly distributed to memory nodes in the shared memory pool. Any memory node is equi-distant to any compute

The important parts: > The data is assumed to be randomly distributed to memory nodes in the shared memory pool. Any memory node is equi-distant to any compute node, and a compute node needs to reach multiple memory nodes for transaction execution. and also: > Once a memory server fails, NAM-DB halts the complete system and recover all memory servers to a consistent state from the last persisted checkpoint. The recovery procedure is executed by one dedicated compute server that replays the merged log for all memory servers. >This global stall is problematic for production, but NAM is a research proof-of-concept system. Maybe using redundancy/quorums would be a way to solve this, but then that could be introducing challenges for consistency. Not straightforward. Yeah, research and proof-of-concept sounds about right. Some might even call it a toy database. Also worth noting that this is a paper from 2016/2017. The world of (actually!) distributed database design has significantly moved on since then.