LASER Summer School on Software Engineering

Software Engineering pp 84-120

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8987) | Cite as

Consistency in Distributed Systems



Data replication is a common technique for programming distributed systems, and is often important to achieve performance or reliability goals. Unfortunately, the replication of data can compromise its consistency, and thereby break programs that are unaware. In particular, in weakly consistent systems, programmers must assume some responsibility to properly deal with queries that return stale data, and to avoid state corruption under conflicting updates. The fundamental tension between performance (favoring weak consistency) and correctness (favoring strong consistency) is a recurring theme when designing concurrent and distributed systems, and is both practically relevant and of theoretical interest.

In this course, we investigate how to understand and formalize consistency guarantees, and how we can determine if a system implementation is correct with respect to such specifications. We start by examining consensus, a classic problem in distributed systems, and then proceed to study various specifications and implementations of eventually consistent systems.


  1. 1.
    Brewer, E.A.: Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In: PODC 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burckhardt, S.: Consistency in distributed systems. LASER Summer School Slide Decks (2013).
  3. 3.
    Burckhardt, S.: Principles of eventual consistency. Found. Trends Program. Lang. 1(1–2), 1–150 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burrowsm, M.: The Chubby lock service for loosely-coupled distributed systems. In: Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 335–350 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cachin, C., Guerraoui, R., Rodrigues, L.: Introduction to Reliable and Secure Distributed Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dill, D.L.: The murphi verification system. In: Computer Aided Verification, pp. 390–393 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32, 374–382 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt, P., Konar, M., Junqueira, F.P., Reed, B.: Zookeeper: wait-free coordination for internet-scale systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIXATC 2010, p. 11. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun. ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16, 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd, W., Freedman, M.J., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.G.: Don’t settle foreventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: SOSP 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terry, D.: Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas, R.H., Beranek, B.: A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 180–209 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations