You missed something in step 7. When C processes accept 100:b it sets its state to C(100:b,100). By accepting a value the node is also promising to not accept earlier values. Update. I’ve been thinking about this all month because I knew the above answer was not absolutely correct. What’s more I looked through several … Read more
If you can use something like CRDT, do so. You should get much better performance. It also enables interesting use cases such as working offline and then merging later. However it is not always possible to design things such that a CRDT will work for you. In that case, paxos can solve the hard problems … Read more
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 … Read more
2PC blocks if the transaction manager fails, requiring human intervention to restart. 3PC algorithms (there are several such algorithms) try to fix 2PC by electing a new transaction manager when the original manager fails. Paxos does not block as long as a majority of processes (managers) are correct. Paxos actually solves the more general problem … Read more
Both approaches are similar in that they provide eventual consistency. The difference is in how they do it. One way of looking at it is: OT does it by changing operations. Operations are sent over the wire and concurrent operations are transformed once they are received. CRDTs do it by changing state. Operations are made … Read more