skip to main content
short-paper
Free Access

Quantifying eventual consistency with PBS

Published:01 August 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Data replication results in a fundamental trade-off between operation latency and consistency. At the weak end of the spectrum of possible consistency models is eventual consistency, which provides no limit to the staleness of data returned. However, anecdotally, eventual consistency is often "good enough" for practitioners given its latency and availability benefits. In this work, we explain this phenomenon and demonstrate that, despite their weak guarantees, eventually consistent systems regularly return consistent data while providing lower latency than their strongly consistent counterparts. To quantify the behavior of eventually consistent stores, we introduce Probabilistically Bounded Staleness (PBS), a consistency model that provides expected bounds on data staleness with respect to both versions and wall clock time. We derive a closed-form solution for version-based staleness and model real-time staleness for a large class of quorum replicated, Dynamo-style stores. Using PBS, we measure the trade-off between latency and consistency for partial, non-overlapping quorum systems under Internet production workloads. We quantitatively demonstrate how and why eventually consistent systems frequently return consistent data within tens of milliseconds while offering large latency benefits.

References

  1. Abadi, D.J. Consistency tradeoffs in modern distributed database system design: CAP is only part of the story. IEEE Comput. 45, 2 (2012), 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aiyer, A., Alvisi, L., Bazzi, R.A. On the availability of non-strict quorum systems. In DISC 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Aiyer, A.S., Alvisi, L., Bazzi, R.A. Byzantine and multi-writer k-quorums. In DISC (2006), 443--458. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bailis, P., Ghodsi, A. Eventual consistency today: Limitations, extensions, and beyond. ACM Queue 11, 3 (Mar. 2013), 20:20--20:32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bailis, P., Venkataraman, S., Franklin, M.J., Hellerstein, J.M., Stoica, I. Probabilistically bounded staleness for practical partial quorums. PVLDB 5, 8 (2012), 776--787. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bailis, P., Venkataraman, S., Franklin, M.J., Hellerstein, J.M., Stoica, I. PBS at work: Advancing data management with consistency metrics. In SIGMOD 2013 Demo. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bailis, P., Venkataraman, S., Franklin, M.J., Hellerstein, J.M., Stoica, I. Quantifying eventual consistency with PBS. VLDB J. (2014). (see http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00778-013-0330-1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, B.F., Ramakrishnan, R., Srivastava, U., Silberstein, A., Bohannon, P., Jacobsen, H.A., Puz, N., Weaver, D., Yerneni, R. Pnuts: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform. In VLDB 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Davidson, S., Garcia-Moina, H., Skeen, D. Consistency in partitioned networks. ACM Comput. Surv. 17, 3 (1985), 314--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. DeCandia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., Vogels, W. Dynamo: Amazon's highly available key-value store. In SOSP 2007, 205--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Golab, W., Li, X., Shah, M.A. Analyzing consistency properties for fun and profit. In PODC (2011), 197--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hamilton, J. Perspectives: I love eventual consistency but… http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/02/24/ILoveEventualConsistencyBut.aspx (24 Feb. 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Herlihy, M., Wing, J.M. Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12, 3 (1990), 463--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kirkell, J. Consistency or bust: Breaking a Riak cluster. http://www.oscon.com/oscon2011/public/schedule/detail/19762. Talk at O'Reilly OSCON 2011 (27 Jul. 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Linden, G. Make data useful. https://sites.google.com/site/glinden/Home/StanfordDataMining.2006-11-29.ppt (29 Nov. 2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Linden, G. Marissa Mayer at Web 2.0. http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-20.html (9 Nov. 2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd, W., Freedman, M.J., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.G. Stronger semantics for low-latency geo-replicated storage. In NSDI 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mahajan, P., Alvisi, L., Dahlin, M. Consistency, Availability, Convergence. Technical Report TR-11-22, Computer Science Department, University of Texas at Austin, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Malkhi, D., Reiter, M., Wool, A., Wright, R. Probabilistic quorum systems. Inform. Commun. 170 (2001), 184--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Merideth, M., Reiter, M. Selected results from the latest decade of quorum systems research. In Replication, B. Charron-Bost, F. Pedone, and A. Schiper, eds. Volume 5959 of LNCS (2010). Springer, 185--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rahman, M., Golab, W., AuYoung, A., Keeton, K., Wylie, J. Toward a principled framework for benchmarking consistency. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in System Dependability (Hollywood, CA, 2012), USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Schurman, E., Brutlag, J. Performance related changes and their user impact. Presented at Velocity Web Performance and Operations Conference (San Jose, CA, Jun. 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sovran, Y., Power, R., Aguilera, M.K., Li, J. Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems. In SOSP 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Stonebraker, M. Urban myths about SQL. http://voltdb.com/_pdf/VoltDB-MikeStonebrakerSQLMythsWebinar-060310.pdf. VoltDB Webinar (Jun. 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Terry, D.B., Demers, A.J., Petersen, K., Spreitzer, M.J., Theimer, M.M., Welch, B.B. Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In PDIS 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Vogels, W. Eventually consistent. CACM 52 (2009), 40--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yu, H., Vahdat, A. Design and evaluation of a conit-based continuous consistency model for replicated services. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 20, 3 (2002), 239--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying eventual consistency with PBS

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Communications of the ACM
      Communications of the ACM  Volume 57, Issue 8
      August 2014
      92 pages
      ISSN:0001-0782
      EISSN:1557-7317
      DOI:10.1145/2632661
      • Editor:
      • Moshe Y. Vardi
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 August 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDFChinese translation

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format