Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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 β€” 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.



Would 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.


Neither OT/CRDT nor Paxos/Raft are meant to resist rogue actors. They are not Byzantine fault tolerant.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: