Causal Consistency: Beyond Memory

In distributed systems where strong consistency is costly when not impossible, causal consistency provides a valuable abstraction to represent program executions as partial orders. In addition to the sequential program order of each computing entity, causal order also contains the semantic links between the events that affect the shared objects -- messages emission and reception in a communication channel , reads and writes on a shared register. Usual approaches based on semantic links are very difficult to adapt to other data types such as queues or counters because they require a specific analysis of causal dependencies for each data type. This paper presents a new approach to define causal consistency for any abstract data type based on sequential specifications. It explores, formalizes and studies the differences between three variations of causal consistency and highlights them in the light of PRAM, eventual consistency and sequential consistency: weak causal consistency, that captures the notion of causality preservation when focusing on convergence ; causal convergence that mixes weak causal consistency and convergence; and causal consistency, that coincides with causal memory when applied to shared memory.Comment: 21st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, Mar 2016, Barcelone, Spai

On the S-matrix renormalization in effective theories

This is the 5-th paper in the series devoted to explicit formulating of the rules needed to manage an effective field theory of strong interactions in S-matrix sector. We discuss the principles of constructing the meaningful perturbation series and formulate two basic ones: uniformity and summability. Relying on these principles one obtains the bootstrap conditions which restrict the allowed values of the physical (observable) parameters appearing in the extended perturbation scheme built for a given localizable effective theory. The renormalization prescriptions needed to fix the finite parts of counterterms in such a scheme can be divided into two subsets: minimal -- needed to fix the S-matrix, and non-minimal -- for eventual calculation of Green functions; in this paper we consider only the minimal one. In particular, it is shown that in theories with the amplitudes which asymptotic behavior is governed by known Regge intercepts, the system of independent renormalization conditions only contains those fixing the counterterm vertices with $n \leq 3$ lines, while other prescriptions are determined by self-consistency requirements. Moreover, the prescriptions for $n \leq 3$ cannot be taken arbitrary: an infinite number of bootstrap conditions should be respected. The concept of localizability, introduced and explained in this article, is closely connected with the notion of resonance in the framework of perturbative QFT. We discuss this point and, finally, compare the corner stones of our approach with the philosophy known as ``analytic S-matrix''.Comment: 28 pages, 10 Postscript figures, REVTeX4, submitted to Phys. Rev.

Data consistency: toward a terminological clarification

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21413-9_15Consistency is an inconsistency are ubiquitous term in data engineering. Its relevance to quality is obvious, since consistency is a commonplace dimension of data quality. However, connotations are vague or ambiguous. In this paper, we address semantic consistency, transaction consistency, replication consistency, eventual consistency and the new notion of partial consistency in databases. We characterize their distinguishing properties, and also address their differences, interactions and interdependencies. Partial consistency is an entry door to living with inconsistency, which is an ineludible necessity in the age of big data.Decker and F.D. Muñoz—supported by the Spanish MINECO grant TIN 2012-37719-C03-01.Decker, H.; Muñoz Escoí, FD.; Misra, S. (2015). Data consistency: toward a terminological clarification. En Computational Science and Its Applications -- ICCSA 2015: 15th International Conference, Banff, AB, Canada, June 22-25, 2015, Proceedings, Part V. Springer International Publishing. 206-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21413-9_15S206220Abadi, D.: Consistency tradeoffs in modern distributed database system design: Cap is only part of the story. Computer 45(2), 37–42 (2012)Bailis, P. (2015). http://www.bailis.org/blog/Bailis, P., Ghodsi, A.: Eventual consistency today: limitations, extensions, and beyond. ACM Queue, 11(3) (2013)Balegas, V., Duarte, S., Ferreira, C., Rodrigues, R., Preguica, N., Najafzadeh, M., Shapiro, M.: Putting consistency back into eventual consistency. In: 10th EuroSys. ACM (2015). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2741948.2741972Beeri, C., Bernstein, P., Goodman, N.: A sophisticate’s introduction to database normalization theory. In: VLDB, pp. 113–124 (1978)Berenson, H., Bernstein, P., Gray, J., Melton, J., O’Neil, E., O’Neil, P.: A critique of ansi sql isolation levels. SIGMoD Record 24(2), 1–10 (1995)Bermbach, D., Tai, S.: Eventual consistency: how soon is eventual? In: 6th MW4SOC. ACM (2011)Bernabé-Gisbert, J., Muñoz-Escoí, F.: Supporting multiple isolation levels in replicated environments. Data & Knowledge Engineering 7980, 1–16 (2012)Bernstein, P., Das, S.. Rethinking eventual consistency. In: SIGMOD 2013, pp. 923–928. ACM (2013)Bernstein, P., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1987)Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T.: Inconsistency Tolerance. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Bobenrieth, A.: Inconsistencias por qué no? Un estudio filosófico sobre la lógica paraconsistente. Premios Nacionales Colcultura. Tercer Mundo Editores. Magister Thesis, Universidad de los Andes, Santafé de Bogotá, Columbia (1995)Bosneag, A.-M., Brockmeyer, M.: A formal model for eventual consistency semantics. In: PDCS 2002, pp. 204–209. IASTED (2001)Browne, J.: Brewer’s cap theorem (2009). http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theoremCong, G., Fan, W., Geerts, F., Jia, X., Ma, S.: Improving data quality: consistency and accuracy. In: Proc. 33rd VLDB, pp. 315–326. ACM (2007)Dechter, R., van Beek, P.: Local and global relational consistency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 173(1), 283–308 (1997)Decker, H.: Translating advanced integrity checking technology to SQL. In: Doorn, J., Rivero, L. (eds.) Database integrity: challenges and solutions, pp. 203–249. Idea Group (2002)Decker, H.: Historical and computational aspects of paraconsistency in view of the logic foundation of databases. In: Bertossi, L., Katona, G.O.H., Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Semantics in Databases 2001. LNCS, vol. 2582, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Decker, H.: Answers that have integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: New measures for maintaining the quality of databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 7336, pp. 170–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Decker, H.: A pragmatic approach to model, measure and maintain the quality of information in databases (2012). www.iti.upv.es/~hendrik/papers/ahrc-workshop_quality-of-data.pdf , www.iti.upv.es/~hendrik/papers/ahrc-workshop_quality-of-data_comments.pdf . Slides and comments presented at the Workshop on Information Quality. Univ, Hertfordshire, UKDecker, H.: Answers that have quality. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Carlini, M., Torre, C.M., Nguyen, H.-Q., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7972, pp. 543–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Decker, H.: Measure-based inconsistency-tolerant maintenance of database integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2013. LNCS, vol. 7693, pp. 149–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant integrity checking. IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering 23(2), 218–234 (2011)Decker, H., Muñoz-Escoí, F.D.: Revisiting and improving a result on integrity preservation by concurrent transactions. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 297–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Dong, X.L., Berti-Equille, L., Srivastava, D.: Data fusion: resolving conflicts from multiple sources (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00310Eswaran, K., Gray, J., Lorie, R., Traiger, I.: The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. CACM 19(11), 624–633 (1976)Muñoz-Escoí, F.D., Ruiz-Fuertes, M.I., Decker, H., Armendáriz-Íñigo, J.E., de Mendívil, J.R.G.: Extending middleware protocols for database replication with integrity support. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 607–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Fekete, A.: Consistency models for replicated data. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 450–451. Springer (2009)Fekete, A., Gupta, D., Lynch, V., Luchangco, N., Shvartsman, A.: Eventually-serializable data services. In: 15th PoDC, pp. 300–309. ACM (1996)Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)Golab, W., Rahman, M., Auyoung, A., Keeton, K., Li, X.: Eventually consistent: Not what you were expecting? ACM Queue, 12(1) (2014)Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 27(2), 159–184 (2006)Gray, J., Lorie, R., Putzolu, G., Traiger, I.: Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared data base. In: Nijssen, G. (ed.) Modelling in Data Base Management Systems. North Holland (1976)Haerder, T., Reuter, A.: Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. Computing Surveys 15(4), 287–317 (1983)Herlihy, M., Wing, J.: Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. TOPLAS 12(3), 463–492 (1990)R. Ho. Design pattern for eventual consistency (2009). http://horicky.blogspot.com.es/2009/01/design-pattern-for-eventual-consistency.htmlIkeda, R., Park, H., Widom, J.: Provenance for generalized map and reduce workflows. In: CIDR (2011)Kempster, T., Stirling, C., Thanisch, P.: Diluting acid. SIGMoD Record 28(4), 17–23 (1999)Li, X., Dong, X.L., Meng, W., Srivastava, D.: Truth finding on the deep web: Is the problem solved? VLDB Endowment 6(2), 97–108 (2012)Lloyd, W., Freedman, M., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with cops. In: 23rd SOPS, pp. 401–416 (2011)Lomet, D.: Transactions: from local atomicity to atomicity in the cloud. In: Jones, C.B., Lloyd, J.L. (eds.) Dependable and Historic Computing. LNCS, vol. 6875, pp. 38–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Monge, P., Contractor, N.: Theory of Communication Networks. Oxford University Press (2003)Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)Muñoz-Escoí, F.D., Irún, L., H. Decker: Database replication protocols. In: Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 153–157. IGI Global (2005)Oracle: Constraints. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14223/constra.htm (May 1, 2015)Ouzzani, M., Medjahed, B., Elmagarmid, A.: Correctness criteria beyond serializability. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 501–506. Springer (2009)Rosenkrantz, D., Stearns, R., Lewis, P.: Consistency and serializability in concurrent datanbase systems. SIAM J. Comput. 13(3), 508–530 (1984)Saito, Y., Shapiro, M.: Optimistic replication. JACM 37(1), 42–81 (2005)Sandhu, R.: On five definitions of data integrity. In: Proc. IFIP WG11.3 Workshop on Database Security, pp. 257–267. North-Holland (1994)Simmons, G.: Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity. IEEE Press (1992)Sivathanu, G., Wright, C., Zadok, E.: Ensuring data integrity in storage: techniques and applications. In: Proc. 12th Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, p. 26. ACM (2005)Svanks, M.: Integrity analysis: Methods for automating data quality assurance. Information and Software Technology 30(10), 595–605 (1988)Technet, M.: Data integrity. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933058 (May 1, 2015)Terry, D.: Replicated data consistency explained through baseball. Technical report, Microsoft. MSR Technical Report (2011)Traiger, I., Gray, J., Galtieri, C., Lindsay, B.: Transactions and consistency in distributed database systems. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 7(3), 323–342 (1982)Vidyasankar, K.: Serializability. In: Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2626–2632. Springer (2009)Vogels, W.: Eventually consistent (2007). http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/12/eventually_consistent.html . Other versions in ACM Queue 6(6), 14–19. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1466448 (2008) and CACM 52(1), 40–44 (2009)Wikipedia: Consistency model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_model (May 1, 2015)Wikipedia: Data integrity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrity (May 1, 2015)Wikipedia: Data quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality (May 1, 2015)Yin, X., Han, J., Yu, P.: Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web. IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(6), 796–808 (2008)Young, G.: Quick thoughts on eventual consistency (2010). http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2010/04/14/quick-thoughts-on-eventual-consistency/ (May 1, 2015

The Weakest Failure Detector for Eventual Consistency

In its classical form, a consistent replicated service requires all replicas to witness the same evolution of the service state. Assuming a message-passing environment with a majority of correct processes, the necessary and sufficient information about failures for implementing a general state machine replication scheme ensuring consistency is captured by the {\Omega} failure detector. This paper shows that in such a message-passing environment, {\Omega} is also the weakest failure detector to implement an eventually consistent replicated service, where replicas are expected to agree on the evolution of the service state only after some (a priori unknown) time. In fact, we show that {\Omega} is the weakest to implement eventual consistency in any message-passing environment, i.e., under any assumption on when and where failures might occur. Ensuring (strong) consistency in any environment requires, in addition to {\Omega}, the quorum failure detector {\Sigma}. Our paper thus captures, for the first time, an exact computational difference be- tween building a replicated state machine that ensures consistency and one that only ensures eventual consistency

Scalable Persistent Storage for Erlang

The many core revolution makes scalability a key property. The RELEASE project aims to improve the scalability of Erlang on emergent commodity architectures with 100,000 cores. Such architectures require scalable and available persistent storage on up to 100 hosts. We enumerate the requirements for scalable and available persistent storage, and evaluate four popular Erlang DBMSs against these requirements. This analysis shows that Mnesia and CouchDB are not suitable persistent storage at our target scale, but Dynamo-like NoSQL DataBase Management Systems (DBMSs) such as Cassandra and Riak potentially are. We investigate the current scalability limits of the Riak 1.1.1 NoSQL DBMS in practice on a 100-node cluster. We establish for the first time scientifically the scalability limit of Riak as 60 nodes on the Kalkyl cluster, thereby confirming developer folklore. We show that resources like memory, disk, and network do not limit the scalability of Riak. By instrumenting Erlang/OTP and Riak libraries we identify a specific Riak functionality that limits scalability. We outline how later releases of Riak are refactored to eliminate the scalability bottlenecks. We conclude that Dynamo-style NoSQL DBMSs provide scalable and available persistent storage for Erlang in general, and for our RELEASE target architecture in particular