CSE 5307: Distributed Systems

Chapter 6 - Consistency and Replication

Dr.T.GopiKrishna, Assistant Professor

Big Data, Machine Learning and data science Lab
Department of Computer Science and Engineering@SoEEC
ASTU, Adama
8/21/23
 Objectives of the Chapter

o We discuss
 Why replication is useful and its relation with scalability; in
particular object-based replication
 Consistency models
• Data –Centric consistency Model
• Client–Centric consistency models
 How consistency and replication are implemented

2
6.1 Reasons for Replication
o Two major reasons: reliability and performance

 Reliability

 if a file is replicated, we can switch to other replicas if

there is a crash on our replica

 we can provide better protection against corrupted

data; similar to mirroring in non-distributed systems

 Performance

 if the system has to scale in size and geographical area

place a copy of data in the proximity of the process

using them, reducing the time of access and increasing
its performance; for example a Web server is accessed
by thousands of clients from all over the world

3
 Replication as Scaling Technique
 Replication and caching are widely applied as scaling
techniques
o processes can use local copies and limit access time and

traffic. however, we need to keep the copies

consistent; but this may
1. Require more network bandwidth
 if the copies are refreshed more often than used (low

access-to-update ratio), the cost (bandwidth) is more

expensive than the benefits;

4
2. Itself be subject to serious scalability problems
o intuitively, a read operation made on any copy should

return the same value (the copies are always the same)
o thus, when an update operation is performed on one

copy, it should be propagated to all copies before a

subsequent operation takes places
o this is sometimes called tight consistency (a write is

performed at all copies in a single atomic operation or

transaction)
o difficult to implement since it means that all replicas

first need to reach agreement on when exactly an

update is to be performed locally, say by deciding a
global ordering of operations using Lamport
timestamps and this takes a lot of communication time

5
 dilemma
 scalability problems can be alleviated by applying
replication and caching, leading to a better performance
 but, keeping copies consistent requires global
synchronization, which is generally costly in terms of
performance
 solution: loosen the consistency constraints
 updates do not need to be executed as atomic operations
(no more instantaneous global synchronization); but
copies may not be always the same everywhere
 to what extent the consistency can be loosened depends
on the specific application (the purpose of data as well as
access and update patterns)

6
6.2 Data-Centric Consistency Models
o Consistency has always been discussed
 in terms of read and write operations on shared data

available by means of (distributed) shared memory, a

(distributed) shared database, or a (distributed) file
system
 we use the broader term data store, which may be
physically distributed across multiple machines
 assume also that each process has a local copy of the data
store and write operations are propagated to the other
copies

the general organization of a logical data store, physically distributed and

replicated across multiple processes 7
o a consistency model is a contract between processes and the
data store
 processes agree to obey certain rules, then the data store

promises to work correctly

o ideally, a process that reads a data item expects a value that
shows the results of the last write operation on the data
o in a distributed system and in the absence of a global clock
and with several copies, it is difficult to know which is the last
write operation
o to simplify the implementation, each consistency model
restricts what read operations return
o data-centric consistency models to be discussed
1. strict consistency
2. sequential consistency
3. causal consistency
4. weak consistency
5. release consistency
6. entry consistency
8
1.Strict Consistency
 the most stringent consistency model and is defined by the

following condition:
Any read on a data item x returns a value corresponding
to the result of the most recent write on x.
 this relies on absolute global time

 sometimes it is against nature

 x is stored only on machine B

 a process on machine A reads x at time T1, i.e., a

message is sent to B
 a process on machine B does a write on x at

time T2 (T1 < T2)

 if T2-T1 is 1 nanosecond, and if the machines are 3

meters apart, the read request can reach B before the

new write operation if the signal travels 10 times the
speed of light
 the requirement is too stringent to demand

9
  the following notations and assumptions will be used
 W (x) means write by P to data item x with the value a has
i a i
been done
 R (x) means a read by P to data item x returning the value
i b i
b has been done
 the index may be omitted when there is no confusion as to

which process is accessing data

 assume that initially each data item is NIL

 consider the following example; write operations are done

locally and later propagated to other replicas

behavior of two processes operating on the same data item

a) a strictly consistent data store
b) a data store that is not strictly consistent; P2’s first read may be,
for example, after 1 nanosecond of P1’s write
 the solution is to relax absolute time and consider time

intervals 10
2. Sequential Consistency
 strict consistency is the ideal but impossible to implement

 fortunately, most programs do not need strict consistency

 sequential consistency is a slightly weaker consistency

 a data store is said to be sequentially consistent when it

satisfies the following condition:

 The result of any execution is the same as if the (read and

write) operations by all processes on the data store were

executed in some sequential order and the operations of
each individual process appear in this sequence in the
order specified by its program
 i.e., all processes see the same interleaving of operations

 time does not play a role; no reference to the “most recent” write

operation

11
 example: four processes operating on the same data item x

 the write operation of P2 appears

to have taken place before that of
P1; but for all processes
a sequentially consistent data
store

 to P3, it appears as if the data item

has first been changed to b, and
later to a; but P4 , will conclude
that the final value is b
a data store that is not
sequentially consistent
 not all processes see the same
interleaving of write operations

12
3.Causal Consistency
 it is a weakening of sequential consistency

 it distinguishes between events that are potentially causally

related and those that are not

 example: a write on y that follows a read on x; the writing

of y may have depended on the value of x

 otherwise the two events are concurrent

 two processes write two different variables

 if event B is caused or influenced by an earlier event, A,

causality requires that everyone else must first see A, then

B
 a data store is said to be causally consistent, if it obeys the

following condition:
 Writes that are potentially causally related must be seen

by all processes in the same order. Concurrent writes

may be seen in a different order on different machines.

13
 example
 W2(x)b and W1(x)c are concurrent, not a requirement for
processes to see them in the same order
CR
Conc

this sequence is allowed with a casually-consistent store, but not with

sequentially or strictly consistent store
CR Conc

a) a violation of a causally-consistent store

b) a correct sequence of events in a causally-consistent store

14
 Models with synchronization operations
4.Weak Consistency
 FIFO consistency is still unnecessarily restrictive for many

applications; it requires that writes originating in a single

process be seen everywhere in order
 not all applications require even seeing all writes, let alone

seeing them in order

 for example, there is no need to worry about intermediate

results in a critical section since other processes will not see

the data until it leaves the critical section; only the final
result need to be seen by other processes
 this can be done by a synchronization variable, S, that has

only a single associated operation synchronize(S), which

synchronizes all local copies of the data store
 a process performs operations only on its locally available

copy of the store

 when the data store is synchronized, all local writes by

process P are propagated to the other copies and writes by

other processes are brought in to P’s copy 15
 this leads to weak consistency models which have three
properties
1. Accesses to synchronization variables associated with
a data store are sequentially consistent (all processes
see all operations on synchronization variables in the
same order)
2. No operation on a synchronization variable is allowed to
be performed until all previous writes have been
completed everywhere (synchronization flushes the
pipeline: all partially completed - or in progress - writes
are guaranteed to be completed when the
synchronization is done)
3. No read or write operation on data items are allowed to
be performed until all previous operations to
synchronization variables have been performed (when a
process accesses a data item (for reading or writing) all
previous synchronization will have been completed; by
doing a synchronization a process can be sure of
getting the most recent values) 16
 weak consistency enforces consistency on a group of
operations, not on individual reads and writes
 e.g., S stands for synchronizes; it means that a local copy
of a data store is brought up to date

a) a valid sequence of events for weak consistency

b) an invalid sequence for weak consistency; P2 should get b

17
6. Entry Consistency
 like release consistency, it requires an acquire and release
to be used at the start and end of a critical section
 however, it requires that each ordinary shared data item to
be associated with some synchronization variable such as
a lock
 if it is desired that elements of an array be accessed
independently in parallel, then different array elements may
be associated with different locks
 synchronization variable ownership
 each synchronization variable has a current owner, the
process that acquired it last
 the owner may enter and exit critical sections
repeatedly without sending messages
 other processes must send a message to the current
owner asking for ownership and the current values of
the data associated with that synchronization variable
 several processes can also simultaneously own a
synchronization variable, but only for reading 18
 a data store exhibits entry consistency if it meets all the
following conditions:
 An acquire access of a synchronization variable is not
allowed to perform with respect to a process until all
updates to the guarded shared data have been performed
with respect to that process. (at an acquire, all remote
changes to the guarded data must be made visible)
 Before an exclusive mode access to a synchronization
variable by a process is allowed to perform with respect to
that process, no other process may hold the
synchronization variable, not even in nonexclusive mode.
 After an exclusive mode access to a synchronization
variable has been performed, any other process's next
nonexclusive mode access to that synchronization variable
may not be performed until it has performed with respect to
that variable's owner. (it must first fetch the most recent
copies of the guarded shared data)

19
 a valid event sequence for entry consistency

 when an acquire is done only those variables guarded by that

synchronization variable are made consistent
 therefore, a few shared data items have to be synchronized
when there is a release

20
Summary of Data-Centric Consistency Models

a) consistency models not using synchronization operations

b) models with synchronization operations 21
 consistency models differ
 in complexity of implementation
 ease of programming
 performance
 strict consistency: most restrictive; never implemented,
implementation in a distributed system is impossible
 linearizability: hardly ever used; but facilitates reasoning
about the correctness of parallel programs
 sequential consistency: widely used, but poor performance;
so relax conditions by having causal consistency and FIFO
consistency
 weak consistency, release consistency, and entry
consistency: require additional programming constructs;
allow programmers to pretend that a data store is
sequentially consistent when in fact it is not; may provide the
best performance depending on applications

22
6.3 Client-Centric Consistency Models
 with many applications, updates happen very rarely

 for these applications, data-centric models where high

importance is given for updates are not suitable

 very weak consistency is generally sufficient for such

systems
 Eventual Consistency

 there are many applications where few processes (or a

single process) update the data while many read it and

there are no write-write conflicts; we need to handle
only read-write conflicts; e.g., DNS server, Web site
 for such applications, it is even acceptable for readers

to see old versions of the data (e.g., cached versions of

a Web page) until the new version is propagated
 with eventual consistency, it is only required that

updates are guaranteed to gradually propagate to all

replicas
23
 data stores that are eventually consistent have the property
that in the absence of updates, all replicas converge toward
identical copies of each other
 write-write conflicts are rare and are implemented separately
 the problem with eventual consistency is when different
replicas are accessed, e.g., a mobile client accessing a
distributed database may acquire an older version of data
when it uses a new replica as a result of changing location

24
 the principle of a mobile user accessing different replicas of a distributed
database
 the solution is to introduce client-centric consistency
 it provides guarantees for a single client concerning the
consistency of accesses to a data store by that client; no
guaranties are given concerning concurrent accesses by
different clients 25
 there are four client-centric consistency models
 consider a data store that is physically distributed across
multiple machines
 a process reads and writes to a locally available copy and
updates are propagated
 assume that data items have an associated owner, the only
process permitted to modify that item, hence write-write
conflicts are avoided
 the following notations are used
 x [t] denotes the version of the data item x at local copy
i
Li at time t
 version x [t] is the result of a series of write operations at
i
Li that took place since initialization; denote this set by
WS(xi[t])
 if operations in WS(x [t ]) have also been performed at
i 1
local copy Lj at a later time t2, we write WS(xi[t1];xj[t2]); it
means that WS(xi[t1]) is part of WS(xj[t2])
 the time index may be omitted if ordering of operations is
26
1.Monotonic Reads
 a data store is said to provide monotonic-read consistency

if the following condition holds:

 If a process reads the value of a data item x, any

successive read operation on x by that process will

always return that same value or a more recent value
 i.e., a process never sees a version of data older than what

it has already seen

the read operations performed by a single process P at two different

local copies of the same data store
a) a monotonic-read consistent data store
b) a data store that does not provide monotonic reads; there is
no guaranty that when R(x2) is executed WS (x2) also contains
WS (x1) 27
2.Monotonic Writes
 it may be required that write operations propagate in the

correct order to all copies of the data store

 in a monotonic-write consistent data store the following

condition holds:
 A write operation by a process on a data item x is

completed before any successive write operation on x by

the same process
 completing a write operation means that the copy on which

a successive operation is performed reflects the effect of a

previous write operation by the same process, no matter
where that operation was initiated
 monotonic-write consistency resembles data-centric FIFO

consistency; here we consider consistency only for a

single process (instead of for a collection of concurrent
processes)

28
 may not be necessary if a later write operation completely
overwrites the present
x = 78;
x = 90;
 no need to make sure that x has been first changed to 78
 it is important only if part of the state of the data item
changes
 e.g., a software library, where one or more functions are
replaced, leading to a new version

the write operations performed by a single process P at two different

local copies of the same data store
a) a monotonic-write consistent data store
b) a data store that does not provide monotonic-write
consistency 29
3.Read Your Writes
 a data store is said to provide read-your-writes

consistency, if the following condition holds:

 The effect of a write operation by a process on data item

x will always be seen by a successive read operation on x

by the same process
 i.e., a write operation is always completed before a

successive read operation by the same process, no matter

where that read operation takes place
 the absence of read-your-writes consistency is often

experienced when a Web page is modified using an editor

and the modification is not seen on the browser due to
caching; read-your-writes consistency guarantees that the
cache is invalidated when the page is updated

a) a data store that provides read-your-writes consistency

b) a data store that does not 30
4.Writes Follow Reads
 updates are propagated as the result of previous read

operations
 a data store is said to provide writes-follow-reads

consistency, if the following condition holds:

 A write operation by a process on a data item x following

a previous read operation on x by the same process, is

guaranteed to take place on the same or a more recent
value of x that was read
 i.e., any successive write operation by a process on a data

item x will be performed on a copy of x that is up to date

with the value most recently read by that process
 this guaranties, for example, that users of a newsgroup see

a posting of a reaction to an article only after they have

seen the original article; if B is a response to message A,
writes-follow-reads consistency guarantees that B will be
written to any copy only after A has been written

31
 a) a writes-follow-reads consistent data store
b) a data store that does not provide writes-follow-reads consistency

 Implementation of Client-Centric Consistency

 a naive implementation

 each write operation is given a globally unique identifier,

assigned by the server that accepts the operation for the

first time
 then for each client, keep track of two sets of identifiers:

 the read set consists of the write identifiers relevant for

the read operations performed by a client

 the write set consists of the identifiers of the writes

performed by the client

32
 monotonic-read consistency is implemented as follows
 when a client performs a read operation at a server, the

server is handed the client’s read set to check if all the

identified writes have taken place locally
 if not, the server contacts the other servers to ensure that it

is brought up to date before carrying out the read operation

(or the read operation is forwarded to a server where the
write operations took place)
 after the read operation, the relevant write operations that

have taken place at the selected servers are added to the

client’s read set
 monotonic-write consistency is implemented as follows
 when a client initiates a new write operation to a server, the

server is handed the client’s write set

 it then ensures that the identified write operations are done

first and in the correct order

 after performing the write, that operation’s write identifier is

added to the write set 33

 read-your-writes consistency is implemented as follows
 it requires that the server where the read operation is

performed has seen all the write operations in the client’s

write set
 the writes can be fetched from the other servers before the

read operation is performed (may result with a poor response

time)
 alternatively, the client-side software can search for a server

where the identified write operations in the client’s write set

have already been performed
 writes-follow-reads consistency is implemented as follows
 first bring the selected server up to date with the write

operations in the client’s read set

 then add the identifier of the write operation to the write set,

along with the identifiers in the read set (which have now
become relevant for the write operation just performed)

34
 problem: in naive implementation, the read and write sets can
become very large
 to improve efficiency, read and write operations can be
grouped into sessions, clearing the sets when the session
ends

35
6.4 Distribution Protocols
 there are different ways of propagating, i.e., distributing
updates to replicas, independent of the consistency
model
 we will discuss
 replica placement
 update propagation
 epidemic protocols
a. Replica Placement
 a major design issue for distributed data stores is
deciding where, when, and by whom copies of the data
store are to be placed
 three types of copies:
 permanent replicas
 server-initiated replicas
 client-initiated replicas
36
the logical organization of different kinds of copies of a data store into three
concentric rings

37
1. Permanent Replicas
 the initial set of replicas that constitute a distributed
data store; normally a small number of replicas
 e.g., a Web site: two forms
 the files that constitute a site are replicated across a
limited number of servers on a LAN; a request is
forwarded to one of the servers
 mirroring: a Web site is copied to a limited number
of servers, called mirror sites, which are
geographically spread across the Internet; clients
choose one of the mirror sites

2. Server-Initiated Replicas (push caches)

 Web Hosting companies dynamically create replicas to
improve performance (e.g., create a replica near hosts
that use the Web site very often)

38
3. Client-Initiated Replicas (client caches or simply caches)
 to improve access time

 a cache is a local storage facility used by a client to

temporarily store a copy of the data it has just received

 placed on the same machine as its client or on a

machine shared by clients on a LAN

 managing the cache is left entirely to the client; the

data store from which the data have been fetched has
nothing to do with keeping cached data consistent

39
b.Update Propagation
 updates are initiated at a client, forwarded to one of the

copies, and propagated to the replicas ensuring

consistency
 some design issues in propagating updates

 state versus operations

 pull versus push protocols

 unicasting versus multicasting

1. State versus Operations

 what is actually to be propagated? three possibilities

 send notification of update only (for invalidation

protocols - useful when read/write ratio is small); use of

little bandwidth
 transfer the modified data (useful when read/write ratio

is high)
 transfer the update operation (also called active

replication); it assumes that each machine knows how

to do the operation; use of little bandwidth, but more
processing power needed from each replica
40
2. Pull versus Push Protocols
 push-based approach (also called server- based protocols):

propagate updates to other replicas without those replicas

even asking for the updates (used when high degree of
consistency is required and there is a high read/write ratio)
 pull-based approach (also called client-based protocols):

often used by client caches; a client or a server requests

for updates from the server whenever needed (used when
the read/write ratio is low)
 a comparison between push-based and pull-based

protocols; for simplicity assume multiple clients and a

single server
Issue Push-based Pull-based
State of server List of client replicas and caches None
Update (and possibly fetch
Messages sent Poll and update
update later)
Response time at client Immediate (or fetch-update time) Fetch-update time
41
 3. Unicasting versus Multicasting
 multicasting can be combined with push-based

approach; the underlying network takes care of sending a

message to multiple receivers
 unicasting is the only possibility for pull-based approach;

the server sends separate messages to each receiver

c.Epidemic Protocols
 update propagation in eventual consistency is often

implemented by a class of algorithms known as epidemic

protocols
 updates are aggregated into a single message and then

exchanged between two servers

42
6.5 Consistency Protocols
 so far we have concentrated on various consistency

models and general design issues

 consistency protocols describe an implementation of a

specific consistency model

 there are three types

 primary-based protocols

 remote-write protocols

 local-write protocols

 replicated-write protocols

 active replication

 quorum-based protocols

 cache-coherence protocols

43
1. Primary-Based Protocols
 each data item x in the data store has an associated

primary, which is responsible for coordinating write

operations on x
 two approaches: remote-write protocols, and local-write

protocols
a. Remote-Write Protocols
 all read and write operations are carried out at a

(remote) single server; in effect, data are not

replicated; traditionally used in client-server systems,
where the server may possibly be distributed

44
primary-based remote-write protocol with a fixed server to which all read
and write operations are forwarded

45
 another approach is primary-backup protocols where reads
can be made from local backup servers while writes should
be made directly on the primary server
 the backup servers are updated each time the primary is
updated

the principle of primary-backup protocol 46

  may lead to performance problems since it may take time
before the process that initiated the write operation is
allowed to continue - updates are blocking
 primary-backup protocols provide straightforward
implementation of sequential consistency; the primary can
order all incoming writes

b.Local-Write Protocols
 two approaches

i. there is a single copy; no replicas

 when a process wants to perform an operation on some

data item, the single copy of the data item is transferred

to the process, after which the operation is performed

47
 primary-based local-write protocol in which a single copy is migrated
between processes
 consistency is straight forward
 keeping track of the current location of each data item is a
major problem

48
ii. primary-backup local-write protocol
 the primary migrates between processes that wish to

perform a write operation

 multiple, successive write operations can be carried out

locally, while (other) reading processes can still access their

local copy
 such improvement is possible only if a nonblocking protocol

is followed

49
primary-backup protocol in which the primary migrates to the process
wanting to perform an update

50
2.Replicated-Write Protocols
 unlike primary-based protocols, write operations can be

carried out at multiple replicas; two approaches: Active

Replication and Quorum-Based Protocols
a. Active Replication
 each replica has an associated process that carries out

update operations
 updates are generally propagated by means of write

operations (the operation is propagated); also possible to

send the update
 the operations need to be done in the same order

everywhere; totally-ordered multicast

 two possibilities to ensure that the order is followed

 Lamport’s timestamps, or

 use of a central sequencer that assigns a unique

sequence number for each operation; the operation is

first sent to the sequencer then the sequencer forwards
the operation to all replicas 51
 a problem is replicated invocations
 suppose object A invokes B, and B invokes C; if object B is

replicated, each replica of B will invoke C independently

 this may create inconsistency and other effects; what if the

operation on C is to transfer $10

the problem of replicated invocations 52

 one solution is to have a replication-aware communication
layer that avoids the same invocation being sent more than
once
 when a replicated object B invokes another replicated object C,
the invocation request is first assigned the same, unique
identifier by each replica of B
 a coordinator of the replicas of B forwards its request to all
replicas of object C; the other replicas of object B hold back;
hence only a single request is sent to each replica of C
 the same mechanism is used to ensure that only a single reply
message is returned to the replicas of B

53
a) forwarding an invocation request from a replicated object
b) returning a reply to a replicated object

54
b.Quorum-Based Protocols
 use of voting: clients are required to request and acquire

the permission of multiple servers before either reading or

writing a replicated data item
 e.g., assume a distributed file system where a file is

replicated on N servers
 a client must first contact at least half + 1 (majority)

servers and get them to agree to do an update

 the new update will be done and the file will be given a

new version number

 to read a file, a client must also first contact at least half +

1 and ask them to send version numbers; if all version

numbers agree, this must be the most recent version
 a more general approach is to arrange a read quorum (a

collection of any NR servers, or more) for reading and a

write quorum (of at least NW servers) for updating

55
  the values of NR and Nw are subject to the following two
constraints
 N + N > N ; to prevent read-write conflicts
R w
 N > N/2 ; to prevent write-write conflicts
w

three examples of the voting algorithm (N = 12)

a) a correct choice of read and write sets; any subsequent read quorum of three
servers will have to contain at least one member of the write set which has a higher
version number
b) a choice that may lead to write-write conflicts; if a client chooses {A,B,C,E,F,G} as its
write set and another client chooses {D,H,I,J,K,L) as its write set, the two updates
will both be accepted without detecting that they actually conflict
c) a correct choice, known as ROWA (read one, write all) 56
3. Cache-Coherence Protocols
 cashes form a special case of replication as they are

controlled by clients instead of servers

 cache-coherence protocols ensure that a cache is

consistent with the server-initiated replicas

 two design issues in implementing caches: coherence

detection and coherence enforcement

 coherence detection strategy: when inconsistencies are

actually detected
 static solution: prior to execution, a compiler performs

the analysis to determine which data may lead to

inconsistencies if cached and inserts instructions that
avoid inconsistencies
 dynamic solution: at runtime, a check is made with the

server to see whether a cached data have been

modified since they were cached

57
 coherence enforcement strategy: how caches are kept
consistent with the copies stored at the servers
 simplest solution: do not allow shared data to be

cached; suffers from performance improvement

 allow caching shared data and

 let a server send an invalidation to all caches

whenever a data item is modified

or
 propagate the update

58
59