Regular Sequential Serializability and Regular Sequential Consistency
Regular Sequential Serializability and Regular Sequential Consistency
复制标题
DOI：
10.1145/3477132.3483566
复制
发表时间：
2021-09
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jeffrey Helt;Matthew Burke;A. Levy;Wyatt Lloyd
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeffrey Helt;Matthew Burke;A. Levy;Wyatt Lloyd
严格可串行化（可线性化）的服务似乎按照与实时一致的顺序顺序执行事务（操作）。这限制了事务（操作）可能的返回值，进而简化了应用程序编程。作为交换，严格可序列化（可线性化）的服务比一致性较弱的服务表现更差。但切换到此类服务可能会破坏应用程序。这项工作引入了两个新的一致性模型来缓解这种权衡：常规顺序可串行性（RSS）和常规顺序一致性（RSC）。它们对于应用程序来说同样强大：我们证明在使用严格可序列化（线性化）服务时适用的任何应用程序不变式在使用 RSS (RSC) 服务时也适用。然而，它们放松了对服务的限制——它们允许新的、性能更好的设计。为了证明这一点，我们设计、实现和评估了 Spanner 和 Gryff 两个系统的变体，分别放宽了它们与 RSS 和 RSC 的一致性。新变体比同类产品实现了更好的只读事务和读尾延迟。
Strictly serializable (linearizable) services appear to execute transactions (operations) sequentially, in an order consistent with real time. This restricts a transaction's (operation's) possible return values and in turn, simplifies application programming. In exchange, strictly serializable (linearizable) services perform worse than those with weaker consistency. But switching to such services can break applications. This work introduces two new consistency models to ease this trade-off: regular sequential serializability (RSS) and regular sequential consistency (RSC). They are just as strong for applications: we prove any application invariant that holds when using a strictly serializable (linearizable) service also holds when using an RSS (RSC) service. Yet they relax the constraints on services---they allow new, better-performing designs. To demonstrate this, we design, implement, and evaluate variants of two systems, Spanner and Gryff, relaxing their consistency to RSS and RSC, respectively. The new variants achieve better read-only transaction and read tail latency than their counterparts.