Monotonic Prefix Consistency in Distributed Systems

  • Alain Girault
  • Gregor Gössler
  • Rachid Guerraoui
  • Jad HamzaEmail author
  • Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10854)


We study the issue of data consistency in distributed systems. Specifically, we consider a distributed system that replicates its data at multiple sites, which is prone to partitions, and which is assumed to be available (in the sense that queries are always eventually answered). In such a setting, strong consistency, where all replicas of the system apply synchronously every operation, is not possible to implement. However, many weaker consistency criteria that allow a greater number of behaviors than strong consistency, are implementable in available distributed systems.

We focus on determining the strongest consistency criterion that can be implemented in a convergent and available distributed system that tolerates partitions. We focus on objects where the set of operations can be split into updates and queries. We show that no criterion stronger than Monotonic Prefix Consistency (MPC) can be implemented.


  1. 1.
    Herlihy, M., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(3), 463–492 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewer, E.: CAP twelve years later: how the “Rules” have changed. Computer 45(2), 23–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.A.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attiya, H., Ellen, F., Morrison, A.: Limitations of highly-available eventually-consistent data stores. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 28(1), 141–155 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun. ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terry, D.: Replicated data consistency explained through baseball. Technical report MSR-TR-2011-137, Microsoft Research, October 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerraoui, R., Pavlovic, M., Seredinschi, D.A.: Trade-offs in replicated systems. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 39, 14–26 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burckhardt, S.: Principles of Eventual Consistency. Now Publishers, October 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouajjani, A., Enea, C., Hamza, J.: Verifying eventual consistency of optimistic replication systems. In: Jagannathan, S., Sewell, P. (eds.) The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, 20–21 January 2014, pp. 285–296. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahajan, P., Alvisi, L., Dahlin, M.: Consistency, availability, convergence. Technical report TR-11-22, Computer Science Department, University of Texas at Austin, May 2011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pass, R., Seeman, L., Shelat, A.: Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 643–673. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 281–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Girault
    • 1
  • Gregor Gössler
    • 1
  • Rachid Guerraoui
    • 2
  • Jad Hamza
    • 3
    Email author
  • Dragos-Adrian Seredinschi
    • 2
  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Inria, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIGGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.LPD, EPFLLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.LARA, EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations