[HN Gopher] Did we miss P In CAP? Partial Progress Conjecture un...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Did we miss P In CAP? Partial Progress Conjecture under Asynchrony
        
       Author : belter
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2025-01-05 15:23 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
        
       | foota wrote:
       | Ok, I'm a bit surprised to see no comments here, I guess everyone
       | is waiting to read the paper till after the work day? :)
       | 
       | I thought it was interesting, iiuc the proposal is that you can
       | design a protocol like Paxos that allows you to guarantee that
       | some replica will win in the future, I'm not sure how useful this
       | is in practice though, since you won't know that your (you being
       | the client) writes are winning until after the fact, and no
       | replica could give you the true state until convergence. I find
       | the claim that this represents partial progress slightly
       | misleading, but interesting nonetheless.
        
       | sargun wrote:
       | Wasn't there a paper from Heidi Howard that stated you it's not
       | actually f failures in 2f+1 nodes, but you can actually make the
       | number of nodes that can fail a lot higher, if you have some
       | nodes that have to take part in the quorum (or the prior
       | proposal)? This feels roughly similar?
        
         | foota wrote:
         | I think that's a different thing... I believe you're talking
         | about flexible paxos (https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06696).
         | 
         | Flexible paxos doesn't change the underlying guarantees at all,
         | whereas this does.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-09 23:02 UTC)