If I understand you correctly, you suggest to have shared dictionary and use Paxos/Raft to order its updates. This approach has limitation - see "There Is More Consensus in Egalitarian Parliaments" paper for details.
I suggest to have dictionary of Paxos/Raft which orders updates only to its element and to use transactions to do multi-object updates.
This article would be really interesting with more context and explanation, but I find a bit unreadable in its current state.
That being said, I enjoyed the algorithm for generating the next Paxos algorithm. That's fun, but I'm still not sure that I really understood what the author was saying.
Thank you for response, maybe I'll return and update it someday.
Yet the idea is very simple. Instead of putting say dictionary behind Paxos/Raft and coordinate update to this state, it makes sense to have dictionary of different Paxos/Raft instances and to use transaction to coordinate multi-updates.
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 22.3 ms ] threadIt doesn't really matter what exactly the paxos value is, so you can put the whole multi-object update in 1 paxos value.
I suggest to have dictionary of Paxos/Raft which orders updates only to its element and to use transactions to do multi-object updates.
That being said, I enjoyed the algorithm for generating the next Paxos algorithm. That's fun, but I'm still not sure that I really understood what the author was saying.
Yet the idea is very simple. Instead of putting say dictionary behind Paxos/Raft and coordinate update to this state, it makes sense to have dictionary of different Paxos/Raft instances and to use transaction to coordinate multi-updates.