There are different consensus algorithm, which are used in permission-oriented blockchain, such as
PAXOS
RAFT
Byzantine General Model
Which of the consensus algorithms are synchronous and asynchronous and why ? Please explain in detail.
Thanks
*I am not an expert on distributed systems still i will try to answer your question.
In distributed systems, People use an underlying model that assumes some properties about time (“how long will it take for this message to arrive?”) and some properties about the types of faults (“how can nodes in the protocol do the wrong thing?”).
There are three main types of timing models usually used for distributed systems the synchronous model, the asynchronous model and the partially synchronous model. Each of these models makes some guarantees about the length of time (“latency”) that can occur between the exchange of messages amongst nodes in a given round of the protocol execution. This categorization is important because in the distributed setting a single node cannot distinguish between a peer node that has failed and a peer node that is just taking a long time to respond.
In the synchronous model, there is some maximum value (“upper bound”) T on the time between when a node sends a message and when you can be certain that the receiving node hears the message. You also have an upper bound P on the relative difference in speed between nodes (so you can account for machines with slow processors).
In the asynchronous model, we remove both upper bounds T and P. Messages can take arbitrarily long to reach peers and each node can take an arbitrary amount of time to respond. When we say arbitrary, we include “infinity” meaning that it takes forever for some event to occur.
The partially synchronous model in a mix of the two: upper bounds exist for T and P but the protocol designer does not know them and the task is designing mechanisms that still come to consensus in light of this fact. In practice, protocol implementers can achieve systems resembling this model given the realistic characteristics of modern networks/machines (messages usually get where they are going) and use of tactics like timeouts to indicate when a node should retry sending a message.
Keeping in mind the above facts, Both Paxos and Raft belongs to the partial synchronous models.
The Byzantine Generals’ Problem is a classic problem faced by any distributed computer system network. Aim is to maintain same state on all participant nodes in presence of malicious nodes.
In distributed systems, there a collection of hard problems that you constantly need to deal with.
Things fail. You can never count on anything being reliable. Even if you have
perfectly bug-free software, and hardware that never breaks, you’ve still got
to deal with the fact that network connections can break, or messages within a
network can get lost, or that some bozo might sever your network connection
with a bulldozer. (That really happened while I was at Google!)
Given (1), you can never rely on one copy of anything, because that copy might
become unavailable due to a failure. So you need to keep multiple copies, and
those copies need to be consistent – meaning that at any time, all of the
copies agree about their contents.
There’s no way to maintain a single completely consistent view of time between
multiple computers. Due to inconsistencies in individual machine performance,
and variable network delays, variable storage latency, and several other
factors, there’s no canonical way of saying that for two events X and Y, “X
happened before Y”. What that means is that when you try to maintain a consistent set of data, you can’t just say “Run all of the events in order”, because while one server maintaining one copy might “know” that X happened before Y, another server maintaining another copy might be just as certain that Y happened before X.
In short, everything can fail at any time; after failure, participants can recover and rejoin the system; any no part of the system acts in an actively adversarial way(byzantine failures may be because of malware).
To solve this problem we have consensus algorithm with the aim to make all participants to agree on the same state.
Consensus involves multiple servers agreeing on values. Once they reach a decision on a value, that decision is final. Typical consensus algorithms make progress when any majority of their servers is available.
Paxos and Raft are consensus algorithms which solves byzantine general problem in distributed networks public or private.
Related
I am building an app in golang that I would like to be fault-tolerant. I looked at different algorithms like RAFT and Paxos and their implementations in golang (etcd's raft, hashicorp's raft), but I feel like they might be an overkill for my specific use case.
In my application, the nodes just wait in standby and act as failovers in case the leader fails. I do not need to replicate any states throughout the cluster. All I need is the following properties:
If a node is a leader:
Run a given code
If a node is not a leader:
Wait for a leader to fail
Reelect the leader once the existing leader fails
Any suggestions?
Since you want a leader election protocol it sounds like you want to avoid having more than one node acting as the leader at once. The answer really depends on how strictly you require this property. In some cases it is acceptable to occasionally have more than one node acting as the leader; perhaps the worst that happens is a bit of duplicated work. In other cases the whole system may operate incorrectly if there's ever any duplicate leaders, so you must be much more careful.
If you can accept occasional cases of duplicate leaders then a simpler protocol may be for you. However, if you absolutely cannot tolerate having more than one leader at once then you will have to combine your leader election protocol with some kind of replication of state, and a proven implementation of Paxos or Raft or similar is a very good way to do this. There's lots of subtly different protocols for this but they're all basically doing the same thing.
The fundamental problem here is pinning down what "at once" means in a realistic network in which messages may sometimes be delivered after a very long delay. Typically one assumes that the network is completely asynchronous with no time bounds on delivery, and indeed Paxos, Raft etc. are all designed to work correctly under that assumption. These algorithms work around this by defining their own internal notion of time (ballots in Paxos, terms in Raft) and attaching this "internal time" to all state transitions under their control. This gives some very strong guarantees and, in particular, ensures that no two nodes may take actions as leader at the same "internal time".
If you don't replicate any state via something like Paxos or Raft then you won't be able to make use of this strong notion of internal time.
You can use the client go Kubernetes library if you will be deploying it in a Kubernetes cluster for your specific use case.
https://github.com/kubernetes-client/go
I'm looking for a distributed message queue that will support millions of queues, with each queue handling tens of messages per second.
The messages will be small (tens of bytes), and I don't expect the queues to get very long--on the order of tens of messages per queue at maximum, but when the system is humming along, the queues should stay fairly empty.
I'm not sure how many nodes to expect in the cluster--probably depends on the specific solution, but if I had to guess, I would say ten nodes. I would prefer that queues were relatively resilient to individual node failures within the cluster, but a few lost messages here and there won't make me lose sleep.
Does such a message queue exist? Seems like most of the field is optimized toward handling hundreds of queues with high throughput. But what is SQS built on? Surely not magic.
Update:
By request, it may indeed help to shed light on my problem domain. (I'd left details out before so as not to muddy the waters.) I'm experimenting with distributed cellular automata, with an initial target of a million cells in simulation. In some CA models, it's useful to add an event model, so that a cell can send events to its neighbors. Hence, a million queues, each with one consumer and 8 or so producers.
Costs are a concern for now, as I'm funding the experiments myself. (Thus Amazon's SQS is probably out of reach.)
From your description, it looks like OMG's Data Distribution Service could be a good fit. It is related to message queueing technologies, but I would rather call it a distributed data management infrastructure. It is completely distributed and supports advanced features that give you a lot of control over how the data is distributed, by means of a rich set of Quality of Service settings.
Not knowing much about your problem, I could guess what an approach might be. DDS is about distributing the state of strongly-typed data-items, as structures with typed attributes. You could create a data-type describing the state of an automaton. One of its attributes could be an ID uniquely identifying the automaton in the system. If possible, that would be assigned according to a scheme such that every automaton knows what the ID's of its neighbors are (if they are present). Each automaton would publish its state as needed, resulting in a distributed data-space containing the current state of all automatons. DDS supports so-called partitioning of that data-space. If you took advantage of that, then each of the nodes in your machine would be responsible for a well-defined subset of all automatons. Communication over the wire would only happen for those automatons neighboring a different partition. Since automatons know the ID's of their neighbors, they would be able to query the data-space for the states of the automatons it's interested in.
It is a bit hard to explain without a white board, but the end-result would be a single instance (which are a sort of very light-weight message queues) for most automatons, and two or three instances for those automatons at the border of a partition. If you had ten nodes and one million automata, then each node would have to be able to hold administration for approximately hundred thousand automata. I have seen systems being built with DDS of that scale, and larger, with tens of updates per second for each instance. The nice thing is that this technology scales well with the number of nodes, so you could bring down the resource load per node by adding more nodes.
If this is a research project, then you might even be able to use a commercial product without charge. Just google on dds research license.
Dynamo-like databases (e.g. Cassandra) can enforce consistency by means of quorum, i.e. a number of synchronously written replicas (W) and a number of replicas to read (R) should be chosen in such a way that W+R>N where N is a replication factor. On the other hand, PAXOS-based systems like Zookeeper are also used as a consistent fault-tolerant storage.
What is the difference between these two approaches? Does PAXOS provide guarantees that are not provided by W+R>N schema?
Yes, Paxos provides guarantees that are not provided by the Dynamo-like systems and their read-write quorums. The difference is how failures are handled and what happens during a write. After a successful write, both kind of systems behave similarly. The data will be saved and available for reading afterwards (until overwritten or deleted) and so on.
The difference appears during a write and after failures. Until you get a successful answer from W nodes when writing something to the eventually consistent systems, then the data may have been written to some nodes and not to others and there is no guarantee that the whole system agrees on the current value. If you try to read the data back at this point, some clients may get the new data back and some the old data back. In other words, the system is not immediately consistent. This is because writes aren't atomic across nodes in these systems. There are usually mechanisms to "heal" an inconsistency like this and "eventually" the system will become consistent again (i.e. reads will once again always return the same value, until something new is written). This is the reason why they are often called "eventually consistent". Inconsistencies can (and will) appear, but they will always be dealt with and reconciled eventually.
With Paxos, writes can be made atomic across nodes and inconsistencies between nodes are therefore possible to avoid. The Paxos algorithm makes it possible to guarantee that non-faulty nodes never disagree on the outcome of a write, at any point in time. Either the write succeeded everywhere or nowhere. There will never be any inconsistent reads at any point (if it's correctly implemented and if all the assumptions hold, of course). This comes at a cost, however. Mainly, the system may need to delay some requests and be unavailable when for example too many nodes (or the communication between them) aren't working. This is necessary to assure that no inconsistent replies are given.
To summarize: the main difference is that the Dynamo-like systems can return inconsistent results during writes or after failures for some time (but will eventually recover from it), whereas Paxos based systems can guarantee that there are never any such inconsistencies by sometimes being unavailable and delaying requests instead.
Paxos is non-trivial to implement, and expensive enough that many systems using it use hints as well, or use it only for leader election, or something. However, it does provide guaranteed consistency in the presence of failures - subject of course to the limits of its particular failure model.
The first quorum based systems I saw assumed some sort of leader or transaction infrastructure that would ensure enough consistency that you could trust that the quorum mechanism worked. This infrastructure might well be Paxos-based.
Looking at descriptions such as https://cloudant.com/blog/dynamo-and-couchdb-clusters/, it would appear that Dynamo is not based on an infrastructure that guarantees consistency for its quorum system - so is it being very clever or cutting corners? According to http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/dynamo-amazons-highly-available-key.html, "The Dynamo system emphasizes availability to the extent of sacrificing consistency. The abstract reads "Dynamo sacrifices consistency under certain failure scenarios". Actually, later it becomes clear that Dynamo sacrifices consistency even in the absence of failures: Dynamo may become inconsistent in the presence of multiple concurrent write requests since the replicas may diverge due to multiple coordinators." (end quote)
So, it would appear that in the case of quorums as implemented in Dynamo, Paxos provides stronger reliability guarantees.
Paxos and the W+R>N quorum try to solve slightly different problems. Paxos is usually described as a way to replicate a state machine, but in fact it is more of a distributed log: each item written to the log gets an index, and the different servers eventually hold the same log items + their index. (Replicated state machine can be achieved by writing to the log the inputs to the state machine and each server replays the state machine on the agreed inputs according to their index). You can read more about Paxos in a blog post I wrote here.
The W+R>N quorum solves the problem of sharing a single value among multiple servers. In the academia it is called "shared register". A shared register has two operations: read and write, where we expect the read to return the value of the previous write.
So, Paxos and the W+R>N quorum live in different domains, and have different properties (e.g., Paxos saves an ordered list of items). However, Paxos can be used to implement a shared register, and a W+R>N quorum can be used to implement a distributed log (although, very inefficiently).
Saying all the above, sometimes the W+R>N quorums aren't implemented in their "fully robust" way, as it will require more than one communication round. Thus, in systems that want low latency, it is possible that their implementation of W+R>N quorums provide weaker properties (e.g., conflicting values can co exist).
To sum up, theoretically, Paxos and the W+R>N can achieve the same goals. Practically, it would be very inefficient, and each one is better for something slightly different. Even more practically, W+R>N isn't always implemented fully, thus scarifying some consistency properties for speed.
Update: Paxos supports a very general failure model: messages can be dropped, nodes can crash and restart. The W+R>N quorum scheme has dfferent implementations, many of which assume less general failures. So, the difference between the two also depends on the assumption on the possible failures that are supported.
There is no difference. The definition of a quorum says that any two quorums' intersection is not empty. Simple majority quorum is an example NOT a definition. Take a look at Dr. Lamport's later paper "Vertical Paxos", where he gave some other possible configuration of quorums.
Multi-decree paxos protocol (AKA Multi-Paxos), in steady state it's just two phase commit. Ballot number changes are only needed when the leader fails.
Zookeeper's replication protocol (ZAB) , and RAFT are all based on Paxos. The differences are in fault-detection and transition after a leader fails.
As mentioned in other answers, in an R+W > N system, the writes are not atomic on all nodes which means that when a write is in progress (or during a write failure) some nodes will have newer values and some older ones. Take an example of a system where n=3, r=2, and w=2. For clarity let's assume the 3 nodes are named A, B, and C. Consider this scenario: a write is in progress; node A has been updated while B and C are still in process of receiving the updated value. Clients reading from A and B will see the newer value (resolved using version vectors or last write wins) and clients reading from B and C will see old values. This type of read is not considered linearizable. Such issues will not occur with proper linearizable systems such as Paxos or Raft.
Could someone give me a list of real use cases of Paxos. That is real problems that require consensus as part of a bigger problem.
Is the following a use case of Paxos?
Suppose there are two clients playing poker against each other on a poker server. The poker server is replicated. My understanding of Paxos is that it could be used to maintain consistency of the inmemory data structures that represent the current hand of poker. That is, ensure that all replicas have the exact same inmemory state of the hand.
But why is Paxos necessary? Suppose a new card needs to be dealt. Each replica running the same code will generate the same card if everything went correct. Why can't the clients just request the latest state from all the replicated servers and choose the card that appears the most. So if one server had an error the client will still get the correct state from just choosing the majority.
You assume all the servers are in sync with each other (i.e., have the same state), so when a server needs to select the next card, each of the servers will select the exact same card (assuming your code is deterministic).
However, your servers' state also depends on the the user's actions. For example, if a user decided to raise by 50$ - your server needs to store that info somewhere. Now, suppose that your server replied "ok" to the web-client (I'm assuming a web-based poker game), and then the server crashed. Your other servers might not have the information regarding the 50$ raise, and your system will be inconsistent (in the sense that the client thinks that the 50$ raise was made, while the surviving servers are oblivious of it).
Notice that majority won't help here, since the data is lost. Moreover, suppose that instead of the main server crashing, the main server plus another one got the 50$ raise data. In this case, using majority could even be worse: if you get a response from the two servers with the data, you'll think the 50$ raise was performed. But if one of them fails, then you won't have majority, and you'll think that the raise wasn't performed.
In general, Paxos can be used to replicate a state machine, in a fault tolerant manner. Where "state machine" can be thought of as an algorithm that has some initial state, and it advances the state deterministically according to messages received from the outside (i.e., the web-client).
More properly, Paxos should be considered as a distributed log, you can read more about it here: Understanding Paxos – Part 1
Update 2018:
Mysql High Availability uses paxos: https://mysqlhighavailability.com/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-our-homegrown-paxos-based-consensus/
Real world example:
Cassandra uses Paxos to ensure that clients connected to different cluster nodes can safely perform write operations by adding "IF NOT EXISTS" to write operations. Cassandra has no master node so two conflicting operations can to be issued concurrently at multiple nodes. When using the if-not-exists syntax the paxos algorithm is used order operations between machines to ensure only one succeeds. This can then be used by clients to store authoritative data with an expiration lease. As long as a majority of Cassandra nodes are up it will work. So if you define the replication factor of your keyspace to be 3 then 1 node can fail, of 5 then 2 can fail, etc.
For normal writes Caassandra allows multiple conflicting writes to be accepted by different nodes which may be temporary unable to communicate. In that case doesn't use Paxos so can loose data when two Writes occur at the same time for the same key. There are special data structures built into Cassandra that won't loose data which are insert-only.
Poker and Paxos:
As other answers note poker is turn based and has rules. If you allow one master and many replicas then the master arbitrates the next action. Let's say a user first clicks the "check" button then changes their mind and clicks "fold". Those are conflicting commands only the first should be accepted. The browser should not let them press the second button it will disable it when they pressed the first button. Since money is involved the master server should also enforce the rules and only allow one action per player per turn. The problem comes when the master crashes during the game. Which replica can become master and how do you enforce that only one replica becomes master?
One way to handle choosing a new master is to use an external strong consistently service. We can use Cassandra to create a lease for the master node. The replicas can timeout on the master and attempt to take the lease. As Cassandra is using Paxos it is fault tolerant; you can still read or update the lease even if Cassandra nodes crash.
In the above example the poker master and replicas are eventually consistent. The master can send heartbeats so the replicas know that they are still connected to the master. That is fast as messages flow in one direction. When the master crashes there may be race conditions in replicas trying to be the master. Using Paxos at that point gives you strong consistently on the outcome of which node is now the master. This requires additional messages between nodes to ensure a consensus outcome of a single master.
Real life use cases:
The Chubby lock service for loosely-coupled distributed systems
Apache ZooKeeper
Paxos is used for WAN-based replication of Subversion repositories and high availability of the Hadoop NameNode by the company I work for (WANdisco plc.)
In the case you describe, you're right, Paxos isn't really necessary: A single central authority can generate a permutation for the deck and distribute it to everyone at the beginning of the hand. In fact, for a poker game in general, where there's a strict turn order and a single active player as in poker, I can't see a sensible situation in which you might need to use Paxos, except perhaps to elect the central authority that shuffles decks.
A better example might be a game with simultaneous moves, such as Jeopardy. Paxos in this situation would allow all the servers to decide together what sequence a series of closely timed events (such as buzzer presses) occurred in, such that all the servers come to the same conclusion.
Assuming I have a cluster of n Erlang nodes, some of which may be on my LAN, while others may be connected using a WAN (that is, via the Internet), what are suitable mechanisms to cater for a) different bandwidth availability/behavior (for example, latency induced) and b) nodes with differing computational power (or even memory constraints for that matter)?
In other words, how do I prioritize local nodes that have lots of computational power, over those that have a high latency and may be less powerful, or how would I ideally prioritize high performance remote nodes with high transmission latencies to specifically do those processes with a relatively huge computations/transmission (that is, completed work per message ,per time unit) ratio?
I am mostly thinking in terms of basically benchmarking each node in a cluster by sending them a benchmark process to run during initialization, so that the latencies involved in messasing can be calculated, as well as the overall computation speed (that is, using a node-specific timer to determine how fast a node terminates with any task).
Probably, something like that would have to be done repeatedly, on the one hand in order to get representative data (that is, averaging data) and on the other hand it might possibly even be useful at runtime in order to be able to dynamically adjust to changing runtime conditions.
(In the same sense, one would probably want to prioritize locally running nodes over those running on other machines)
This would be meant to hopefully optimize internal job dispatch so that specific nodes handle specific jobs.
We've done something similar to this, on our internal LAN/WAN only (WAN being for instance San Francisco to London). The problem boiled down to a combination of these factors:
The overhead in simply making a remote call over a local (internal) call
The network latency to the node (as a function of the request/result payload)
The performance of the remote node
The compute power needed to execute the function
Whether batching of calls provides any performance improvement if there was a shared "static" data set.
For 1. we assumed no overhead (it was negligible compared to the others)
For 2. we actively measured it using probe messages to measure round trip time, and we collated information from actual calls made
For 3. we measured it on the node and had them broadcast that information (this changed depending on the load current active on the node)
For 4 and 5. we worked it out empirically for the given batch
Then the caller solved to get the minimum solution for a batch of calls (in our case pricing a whole bunch of derivatives) and fired them off to the nodes in batches.
We got much better utilization of our calculation "grid" using this technique but it was quite a bit of effort. We had the added advantage that the grid was only used by this environment so we had a lot more control. Adding in an internet mix (variable latency) and other users of the grid (variable performance) would only increase the complexity with possible diminishing returns...
The problem you are talking about has been tackled in many different ways in the context of Grid computing (e.g, see Condor). To discuss this more thoroughly, I think some additional information is required (homogeneity of the problems to be solved, degree of control over the nodes [i.e. is there unexpected external load etc.?]).
Implementing an adaptive job dispatcher will usually require to also adjust the frequency with which you probe the available resources (otherwise the overhead due to probing could exceed the performance gains).
Ideally, you might be able to use benchmark tests to come up with an empirical (statistical) model that allows you to predict the computational hardness of a given problem (requires good domain knowledge and problem features that have a high impact on execution speed and are simple to extract), and another one to predict communication overhead. Using both in combination should make it possible to implement a simple dispatcher that bases its decisions on the predictive models and improves them by taking into account actual execution times as feedback/reward (e.g., via reinforcement learning).