# Metastable Failures in the Wild

Metastable failures in distributed systems are failures that “feed” and strengthen their own “failed” condition. The main characteristic of a metastable failure is a positive feedback loop that keeps the system in a degraded/failed state. These failures are hard to spot, as they always start with some other distraction — some trigger event that nudges the system over its operating limit or capacity. However, fixing the trigger is not enough, and engineers realize this too late — so late that sometimes it takes days to stabilize the system and return to the pre-failure level of operation.

I already blogged about this topic last year in the context of our original metastable failures paper from HotOS’21. Now we have the “improved and extended” version out at OSDI’22, and oh boy, we have a lot of juicy stuff there. That failure that took days to recover? I did not make it up. My students spent quite some time going through hundreds, if not thousands, publicly available post-mortem reports for different systems to identify a handful of impactful metastable failures. We are sure there are more metastable failures out there lurking in these bug and failure reports. In fact, we had significantly more candidate failures, but many post-mortems simply do not have enough information to be absolutely sure metastability played a role.

Anyway, above is a table from the paper that lists examples of metastable failures in the wild. Some last for an hour, and some take days to resolve. Many examples are due to retries and retry-induced load amplification. See, when a system becomes slow (i.e., some server failure or transient network issue), it is likely that latency on some requests will start to grow, and it may reach the point at which the client application gives up the request and retries. Retries are great for dealing with transient issues, but they create more load for the system by potentially repeating the same request over again. When the system is already overloaded due to the ongoing issue, retries do not solve any real problem and create more unnecessary load. More load means higher queuing times, higher latency, and more retries. This vicious cycle can continue even after the original trigger issues are fixed, and, in many cases, there is no escape from this except load shedding.

We managed to reproduce a toy example of retry-induced failure using MongoDB. It is a bit concerning that we were able to do so at a small scale, but our experience also showed that not all hope is lost. See, as it turns out, modern systems are good at load shedding — when the request queues up for too long and is too old by the time server can handle it, such an old request can be dropped without wasting further resources. Our experiment here used a very aggressive retry policy that had to overrun the load-shedding mechanisms of the underlying database. That being said, sometimes the difference between a failure and recovery can be down to minuscule difference in the trigger. The figure here shows a failure when a trigger took out 80% of CPU capacity, and a successful trigger recovery when the trigger reduced CPU capacity by 78%.

Now, of course, retries are not the only cause of the self-feeding failure loops, but retries are something most engineers are familiar with, so the post-mortem reports tend to have more details on that topic. Potentially, this is one reason for observing so many retry-induced metastable failures in the wild. However, we saw other feedback loops. For example, one of the failures in the list was caused by excessive logging on the error path, which in turn caused the system to slow down and have more requests enter that same error path.

Seeing the examples in the real world and reproducing them is important. Our HotOS paper claimed that reproducibility at a small scale is often challenging. In this new paper, we have a handful of metastable failure scenarios reproduced at a scale of at most a few VMs. However, a good chunk of the paper is about generalizing what we have learned from the observations. We developed a “reasoning framework” for metastability and metastable failures.

The two important characteristics of metastable failures are triggers and amplification effects. On the trigger side, we can have a load-spiking trigger and capacity-decreasing triggers. The former trigger type temporarily increases the load on the system above some pre-trigger level. An example of this can be higher than expected demand from users. The later trigger type degrades the systems’ serving capacity. An example of this trigger is a server failure that takes some capacity out.

The figure above shows how these two types of triggers and two types of amplification mechanisms can combine. Also, an important point to note — it is possible to have a combination of more than one trigger and more than one amplification mechanism, something that we have seen in the wild. As far as experiencing metastable failure, a lot depends on how the triggers and amplification mechanisms interact and how much load was offered to the system before the failure sequence began.

Small triggers that do not last long or do not have a big enough magnitude (i.e., a trigger that does not overload the system too much) may be less likely to cause an issue. On the other hand, a trigger that lasts an hour and takes out half of the servers is a much bigger problem. Of course, the magnitude of the trigger is not an absolute metric — your system may be fine even when you take out half the servers if it was operating at 25% of its maximum capacity before the trigger event took place.

Triggers are not metastable failures. They are failures on their own that can cause availability and performance issues for clients or users, but they are only the beginning of the metastable failure sequence. The amplification mechanisms are those feedback loops that start after the system is overloaded due to a trigger. Amplification leads to a metastable failure after the system’s overload is amplified so high that even fixing the trigger (i.e., returning lost capacity, or solving the load spike) does not solve the problem. The figure marks those metastable failure points. Naturally, the type of amplification matters a lot. A system with “slow” amplification loops that add little overload over time is better than systems with “fast” amplification loops. In both cases, we can have a metastable failure, but a slow amplification mechanism gives us more time to deal with the trigger.

Anyway, what are the lessons here? For one, I cannot stress the importance of understanding the mechanisms involved so that we can operate the systems better. Maybe, it is not a good idea to squeeze every single bit of capacity from the system/hardware? Having some slack resources allows us to absorb smaller triggers and gives time before the system enters the metastable failure for bigger triggers. The same goes for making systems with predictable performance characteristics. If some code path is significantly slower than the other, a sudden switch to a slower code path can act as a trigger, since it is essentially a capacity degradation.

Load shedding is the solution to metastable failures. All recovery efforts included some load shedding mechanisms. After all, to bring the system back into operation, its load needs to decrease sufficiently as to stop the amplification. But we do not need to leave load shedding only for recovery efforts after it is already too late. More aggressive load shedding done ahead of time or early after the trigger overloaded the system can save from a bigger failure — it is better to lose some requests and piss some clients/users than lose the entire system and impact everyone. Here I can also lump load prioritization — prioritize the work that will raise the system’s goodput if possible.

Another point is to account for the human factor — about half of the observed failures in the wild had some direct human involvement, such as rolling out bad configuration or buggy code. It is important to test and deploy configuration the same way as software. This is something that many systems still seem to neglect. Proper testing of new code is paramount, including stress testing. And, of course, do not deploy on Friday… we have seen a failure in which a weekend load/traffic reduction masked increased resource usage of a new version deployed on Friday. The system failed after the load returned on Monday.

Another interesting observation is the “fix-to-break” behaviors. On a few occasions, engineers increased the severity of the amplification mechanism (feedback loop) after fixing an outage, leading to a more severe failure in the future. I refer to this as a “fix-to-break” pattern; it is a good illustration of why we need to understand metastability in order to avoid causing failures.

As always, the paper has way more details. We talk a lot about definitions and formalism of metastable states and failures. We have a handful of distinct reproductions with triggers and amplifications caused by retries, cache failures, and garbage collections. And finally, we include some real-world first-hand details on metastable failures at a large internet company.

# One Page Summary. Photons: Lambdas on a diet

Recently, to prepare for a class I teach this semester, I went through the “Photons: Lambdas on a diet” SoCC’20 paper by Vojislav Dukic, Rodrigo Bruno, Ankit Singla, Gustavo Alonso. This is a very well-written paper with a ton of educational value for people like me who are only vaguely familiar with serverless space!

The authors try to solve some deficiencies in serverless runtime. See, each function invocation is isolated from all other functions by running in separate containers. Such an isolated approach has lots of benefits, ranging from security to resource isolation. But there are downsides as well — each invocation of the same function needs its own container to run, so if there are no available idle containers from previous runs, a new one needs to be created, leading to cold starts. A “cold” function takes more time to run, as it needs to be deployed in a new container and complied/loaded up to the execution environment. In the case of many popular JIT-compiled languages (i.e., Java), this also means that it initially runs from byte-code in an interpreted mode without a bunch of clever compile-time optimizations. The paper states another problem to having all functions invocations requiring their separate containers — the resource wastage. In particular, if we run many invocations of the same function concurrently, we are likely to waste memory on loading up all the dependencies/libraries separately in each container. The authors also mention that some function invocations, for instance, functions for some ML or data processing workloads, may operate from the same initial dataset. Obviously, this dataset must be loaded to each function container separately.

The paper proposes a solution, called Photons, to address the cold-start issues and resource wastage in workloads with many concurrent invocations of the same functions. The concept of a Photon describes a function executed in a container shared with other function invocations of the same type. The premise here is to forgo some isolation and allow multiple invocations of the same function to share the container. As a result, the number of cold starts can be reduced, and resources, like RAM, can be better utilized by having libraries and common data loaded only once for many concurrent function calls.

The lack of isolation between the function invocations, however, creates a few problems. The paper solves some of them, but it also passes quite a few of these problems off to the function developers. One big problem passed to the developers is ensuring that different invocations of the same function consume a predictable amount of resources. This is needed for a couple of reasons. First, there are scheduling needs, as the system needs to predict machine and container resource usage to determine which containers can be expanded to take on more function calls or which machines can handle new containers. Second, the lack of container-level isolation means that a misbehaved function instance can grab too many resources and starve other concurrent functions in the same container.

Another big problem is memory isolation and memory sharing between concurrent functions invocations. A significant part of the Photons platform deals with these problems. On memory isolation, things are easy when we only work with class variables. Each object created from the class will have a separate copy. However, some class variables may be static, and what is even worse, they can be mutable, allowing concurrent executions of the code to modify these static fields. Photons address this problem by transforming static variables into a map, where a key is a photonID (i.e., a unique invocation id of a function). Naturally, all reads and writes to a static variable change to map puts and gets. There are a bit more nuances with statics, and the paper covers them in greater detail. For sharing state, Photons runtime maintains a KV-store exposed to all Photons/function invocation in the container. One major downside of having a KV-store is managing concurrent access to it, and the systems leave it up to the developers to code coordination to this shared store. Aside from shared KV-store, functions also share the file system for temporary storage.

# Reading Group. Multitenancy for Fast and Programmable Networks in the Cloud.

We discussed “Multitenancy for Fast and Programmable Networks in the Cloud” in the 59th DistSys Reading Group meeting. In a sense, this was a continuation of a previous discussion we had a few months ago when covering Pegasus paper.

Pegasus and many other new protocols rely on specialized programmable network hardware that is not yet available to regular cloud users. This is because such hardware has no support for multitenancy and cannot be efficiently shared and virtualized to allows cloud users to get a virtual slice of the hardware pie. This paper discusses enabling multitenancy on today’s smart network hardware, such as smart switches.

It is not an easy feat to pull off — these switches (in the paper, the authors used a switch based on Barefoot Tofino logic) have limited programmability, limited resources, and can run just one program. Of course, if you can have only one running program, it is hard to run code from different users/tenants. The paper works around this by compiling the code from all tenants together into one “jumbo-program” that can run on the switch. This tenant packing also solves an issue with resource sharing and isolation as the switch’s hardware resources must be defined at the compile time. Of course, there are also issues isolating tenant’s code. This is done at compile time too by renaming the tenant program’s fields, such as tenant-defined headers and table names to the tenant-unique names. A few restrictions are placed on tenants for the sake of isolation, and the paper goes into more detail. One important assumption is that the tenants are expected to be isolated based on their virtual networks (VLANs).

In addition to being the glue that holds all the tenants together, the “jumbo-program” incorporates some “system” code to provide common functionality. For instance, the “system” program can process common packet headers. This allows it to read VLAN ID (ID) and then invoke proper tenant so that the tenant code can do its own header matching/parsing.

The “system” program of a “jumbo-program” also helps us deal with one tricky part here. See, the program on a switch needs to run at the network line speed, and cannot delay any packets, so there is no way to delay any processing. This means that the program runs as a pipeline in multiple stages with no way of returning to a previous one. The “system” program “sandwiches” the tenant program and in a sense establishes some rules and bounds for the tenants.

I already mentioned that the resources are defined/allocated ahead of time. This is also true for memory, as programmers must hardcode the array sizes of stateful memory they want to use. However, the paper works around this by kind of building a virtual memory in the system program of the “jumbo-program”. The “jumbo-program” just allocates a huge array of memory in each pipeline stage and uses a configuration stage to store the memory boundaries for each tenant. Tenants use the boundaries as index offsets into the big array, essentially implementing virtual memory within the “jumbo-program”, and allowing for dynamic memory reallocation by adjusting these memory offsets.

The paper has its HotCloud presentation. And as usual, we had our own presentation, this time by David Correa:

## Discussion

1) Other approaches? The paper mentions some alternatives to the switches they have used. For example, software switches are a lot easier to program. FPGAs can be used for handling some network functions as well. But, according to the paper, these are all slower. ASICs, like Barefoot (now owned by Intel) Tofino, are a lot faster, but with such speed, they are more limited. The programmability constraints, the pipeline processing nature, memory limitations (22 MB of SRAM), etc. are big limiting factors though.

2) Hardware-specific solution. So the solution presented here is rather specific for the hardware available now. This is cool, but I’d want to imagine what can be done in the near future. Can we improve the hardware to reduce these limitations? The authors conjecture that the pipelines will stay: “we expect ASIC-based pipelines—both for switches and NICs—to be more effective than other programmable architectures in terms of both cost and power consumption.” However, maybe somehow better support for multi-tenancy can be backed to a new generation of devices on the hardware level, along with greater flexibility of adding/removing tenants.

3) Not quite cloud-ready? The major pain point of the solution seems to be the need to “mush together” all the tenants before compiling the program and deploying it on the switch. If tenants change (or tenant’s requirements for some hardware resources) the whole thing needs to be repackaged and re-deployed. This sounds like a cumbersome process that may result in some downtime while the new “jumbo-program” is deployed on the network. Exposing this process as some kind of cloud service seems quite infeasible due to these issues. It would have been nice if more resources could have been reallocated between tenants dynamically (of course, we are not experts here, but there may be some real hardware/performance limitation for this very static approach). It would also be nice to have the ability to “side-load” new tenant programs into the “jumbo-program” runtime.

4) Incentives for the cloud providers? Smart network devices can greatly benefit those who have access to them. We are starting to see many systems relying on these. However, right now, cloud providers are those who have access to such hardware, and it may provide some advantage to these providers and their native services. As such, there may be little incentive to offer these resources in the cloud. That being said, this may also play the other way around. If this becomes a very desired feature, the first cloud provider to offer these virtualized multi-tenant switches stand to benefit, and other providers will follow in the chain reaction of chasing the market.

Our reading group takes place over Zoom every Wednesday at 2:00 pm EST. We have a slack group where we post papers, hold discussions, and most importantly manage Zoom invites to paper discussions. Please join the slack group to get involved!

# Reading Group. New Directions in Cloud Programming

Recently we have discussed a CIDR’21 paper: “New Directions in Cloud Programming.Murat Demirbas did the presentation:

Quite honestly, I don’t like to write summaries for this kind of paper. Here, the authors propose a vision for the future of cloud applications, and I feel that summarizing a vision often results in the misinterpretation of that vision. So I recommend reading the paper to draw your own unbiased conclusions.

That being said, here is my extremely high-level take on the paper in a few points:

• Application developers should focus on application logic, and not worry about implementation aspects of consistency, durability, availability, etc.
• It does not mean that developers do not care about consistency, availability, redundancy at all. Instead, they simply should know what they need, and let the cloud provide these. As such, developers should declare their consistency, availability, budgetary needs, etc., and have the cloud runtime enforce such declarations. This will free up the programmers and let them focus on the application logic instead and make this logic “unsoiled” by the other aspects of the distributed app.
• To help developers focus on their applications/tasks, we need domain-specific languages (DSLs). DSLs can hide a lot of “mechanical” work from the programmers and delegate it to the cloud runtime. A good example of a popular DSL we have been using for a very long time is SQL. It is declarative — programmers retrieve and update the data without worrying about how it is done under the hood.
• Despite potentially having many DSLs, we still want one comprehensive framework to run it on, so the visionary system here can compile DSL to some common Intermediary Representation (IR). The authors want the IR to be human-readable and optimizable, although I feel like this requirement is part of the “evolutionary” theme in the paper, and eventually, the importance of human optimizations may diminish.
• Achieving this highly declarative vision is hard, but the paper lists several developing and emerging techniques and research directions that may help evolve the cloud.

## Discussion.

1) DSL. We have spent quite some time discussing DSLs and what does it mean to have many of them. For one, we already have a few successful ones, like SQL. Arguably, ML/AI and data processing systems also often have some form of DSLs. TensorFlow was brought as an example. One minor concern that was expressed in the group is that having many of these DSLs requires someone to make and maintain them. A more interesting DSL question is how specialized they should become? To bring SQL example again, while it is great for what it does, it is rarely used all by itself. So there will be a clear need to allow to mix and match these highly specialized DSLs, potentially making the problem of translating them to IR more difficult.

2) IR. A big part of the Hydro system vision is the IR language. The language itself may get rather complicated when it needs to support many IRs. A bigger challenge may be having to translate DSL logic to a human-readable IR code. The translations that are done must make sense to engineers, the logic should be clear and not obscure to allow people to make sense of it. This pursuit of human readability may result in less performance efficient IR. The readability may also depend on the individual DSLs.

Another point we discussed is whether programmers will just start writing code directly in IR if it is a good, readable, feature-rich language. Maybe this is exactly what the programmers need after all? A language made specifically for distributed applications.

3) How much of this is already in the cloud? DSLs exist, the serverless cloud is developing too, providing more consistency and durability than before. For example, Azure Durable Functions save their intermediate state and can be resumed in the face of failures. And surprisingly, many of these cloud offerings, like serverless, durable functions, serverless storage are easy to use. Last semester I gave a project in my Cloud Computing Systems that used blob storage, serverless functions, and durable functions. To my surprise, the students loved the project and were able to figure out all of this tech (which they had to do on their own since the tech aspect was not really part of the problem they were solving) in just a few days. So as it stands right now, the cloud is evolving quickly, with serverless computing and storage becoming more ad more capable. It is not a coherent single cloud runtime just yet, and probably won’t be there any time soon, but some aspects of the vision are there. Users can scale serverless compute, not worry about its availability, may opt into more durable options when needed, may use cloud-native storage with configured/declared consistency, take advantage of DSLs for many tasks in the cloud, like data management, ML/AI systems, etc…

4) Drivers of innovation? An interesting discussion happened at the end of our meeting. Some expressed the opinion that cloud vendors should know better in what direction to develop the cloud since they are in constant interaction with the clients and must adjust to what clients are asking. I, personally, disagreed with this opinion — cloud clients are not thinking about the long-term visions like this paper describes. Instead, they may have more immediate concerns that must be dealt with given all the technology they already use in the cloud. An example I used is the true invention of GUI by Xerox PARC. The vision was out there, but nobody was really asking for this back then, even Xerox did not really know what to do with it, and willingly let others copy the ideas. Yet, this innovation made modern consumer electronics/computing what it is today. I suspect, that if Xerox were asking clients about what to improve, they may have worked on something as boring as developing a console with 120-character lines instead of an 80-characters one to make existing systems more “user friendly.”

Our reading group takes place over Zoom every Wednesday at 2:00 pm EST. We have a slack group where we post papers, hold discussions, and most importantly manage Zoom invites to paper discussions. Please join the slack group to get involved!

# Paper Summary: Bolt-On Global Consistency for the Cloud

This paper appeared in SOCC 2018, but caught my Paxos attention only recently. The premise of the paper is to provide strong consistency in a heterogeneous storage system spanning multiple cloud providers and storage platforms. Going across cloud providers is challenging, since storage services at different clouds cannot directly talk to each other and replicate the data with strong consistency. The benefits of spanning multiple clouds, however, may worth the hustle, since a heterogeneous system will be both better protected from cloud provider outages, and provide better performance by placing the data closer to the users. The latter aspect is emphasized in the paper, and as seen in the figure, going multi-cloud can reduce latency by up to ~25%.

To solve the issue of consistent cross-cloud replication, authors propose to use Cloud Paxos (CPaxos), a Paxos variant designed to work with followers supporting a very minimal and common set of operations: get and conditional put. In CPaxos, clients act as prospers, and storage systems serve the role of the followers. The followers are not really “smart” in this protocol, and most of the Paxos logic shifts to the client-proposers (Figure 2).

The prepare phase in CPaxos simply gathers the state from the followers, making the proposer decide for itself whether the followers would have accepted it with the current ballot or not. If the proposer thinks it would have been accepted, it will try updating the followers’ state. Doing this, however, requires some precautions from the followers, since their state may have changed after the proposer made a decision to proceed. For that matter, CPaxos uses conditional put (or compare-and-set) operation, making the followers update their state only if it has not changed since it was read by the proposer. This ensures that at most one proposer can succeed with changing the state of the majority of followers.

I visualize this as a log to represent changes in some object’s state. The new version of an object corresponds to a new slot in the log, while each slot can be tried with different ballot by different proposers. The put operation succeeds at the follower only if the value at the slot and a ballot has not been written by some other proposer. In case a proposer does not get a majority of successful updates, it needs to start from the beginning: increase its ballot, perform a read and make a decision whether to proceed with state update. Upon reaching the majority acks on state update, the proposer sends a message to flip the commit bit to make sure each follower knows the global state of the operation.

This basic protocol has quite a few problems with performance. Latency is large, since at least 2 round-trips are required to reach consensus, since every proposer needs to run 2 phases (+ send a commit message). Additionally, increasing the number of proposers acting on the same objects will lead to the growth in conflict, requiring repeated restarts and further increasing latency. CPaxos mitigates these problems to a degree. For example, it tries to commit values on the fast path by avoiding the prepare phase entirely and starting an accept phase on what it believes will be next version of an object with ballot #0. If the proposer’s knowledge of the object’s state (version, ballot) is outdated, the conditional put will fail and the proposer will try again, but this time with full two phases to learn the correct state first. However, if the proposer is lucky, an update can go in just one round-trip. This optimization, of course, works only when an object is rarely updated concurrently by multiple proposers; otherwise dueling leaders become a problem not only for progress, but for safety as well, since two proposers may write different values for the same version using the same ballot. This creates a bit of a conundrum on when the value becomes safely anchored and won’t ever get lost.

Consider an example in which two proposers write different values: green and blue to the same version using ballot #0 (Figure 4 on the left). One of the proposers is able to write to the majority, before it becomes unresponsive. At the same time, one green follower crashes as well, leading to a situation with two followers having green value and two being blue (Figure 5 on the right). The remaining proposer has no knowledge of whether the green or blue value needs to be recovered (remember, they are both on the same ballot in the same slot/version!). To avoid this situation, CPaxos expands the fast path commit quorum from majority to a supermajority, namely $$\left \lceil{\frac{3f}{2}}\right \rceil +1$$ followers, where $$2f+1$$ is the total number of followers, and f is the tolerated number of follower failures, allowing the anchored/committed value to be in a majority of any majority of followers . Having this creates an interesting misbalance in fault tolerance: while CPaxos still tolerates $$f[\latex] node failures and can make progress by degrading to full 2 phases of the protocol, it can lose an uncommitted value even if it was accepted by the majority when up to [latex]f$$ followers fail.

Proposer conflicts are a big problem for CPaxos, so naturally the protocol tries to mitigate it. The approach taken here reduces the duration in which possible conflicts may occur. As CPaxos is deployed over many datacenters, the latencies between datacenters are not likely to be uniform. This means, that a prepare or accept messages from some proposer reach different datacenters at different times, creating an inconsistent state. When two proposers operate concurrently, they are more likely so observe this inconsistency: as both proposers quickly update their neighboring datacenters, they run the risk of not reaching the required supermajority due to the conflicting state (Figure 6(a)) created by some messages being not as quick to reach remaining datacenters. To avoid rejecting both proposers, CPaxos schedules sending messages in a way to deliver them to all datacenters at roughly the same time. This reduces the duration of inconsistent state, allowing to order some concurrent operations (Figure 6(b)).

Despite the above mitigation strategy, conflicts still affect CPaxos greatly. The authors are rather open about this, and show their system CRIC with CPaxos degrading quicker than Paxos and Fast Paxos as the conflict rate increases. However, in the low conflict scenario, which authors argue is more likely in real world applications, CRIC and CPaxos improve on performance compared to Paxos/Fast Paxos, especially for reading the data. This is because reads in CPaxos are carried out in one round-trip-time (RTT) by client-proposer contacting all followers and waiting for at least a majority of them to reply. If the client sees the latest version with a commit flag set in the majority, it can return the data. Otherwise, it will wait to hear from more followers and use their logs to determine the safe value to return. In some rare cases when the proposer cannot determine the latest safe value, it will perform the recovery by running the write path of CPaxos with the value to recover (highest ballot value or highest frequency value if more than one value share the ballot).

Some Thoughts

• The motivation of the paper was to make strongly consistent system spanning multiple clouds providers and storage systems for the benefit of improved latency though leveraging the location of datacenters of these different providers. However, CRIC and CPaxos protocol requires a lot of communication, even on the read path. During reads, a client-proposer contacts all CPaxos nodes, located at all datacenters, and in best case still needs the majority replies. As such the latency benefit here comes from trying to get not just one node closer to the client, but a majority of nodes. This may be difficult to achieve in large systems spanning many datacenters. I think sharding the system and placing it on subset of nodes based on access locality can benefit here greatly. For instance, Facebook’s Akkio paper claims to have significant reduction in traffic and storage by having fewer replicas and making data follow access patterns. In our recent paper, we have also illustrated a few very simple data migration policies and possible latency improvement from implementing these policies.
• One RTT reads in “happy path” can be implemented on top of regular MutliPaxos without contacting all nodes in the systems. Reading from the majority of followers is good enough for this most of the time, while in rare circumstances the reader may need to retry the read from any one node. More on this will be in our upcoming HotStorage ’19 paper.
• The optimization to delay message sending in order to deliver messages at roughly the same time to all nodes can help with conflict reduction in other protocols that suffer from this problem. EPaxos comes to mind right away, as it is affected by the “dueling leaders” problem as well. Actually, CPaxos and EPaxos are rather similar. Both assume low conflict rate to have single round trip “happy path” writes and reads. When the assumption breaks, and there is a conflict, both switch to two phases. EPaxos is better here in a sense that the first opportunistic phase is not totally wasted and can be used as phase-1 in the two phase mode, whereas CPaxos has to start all the way from the beginning due to the API limitation on the follower side.