What Does the Proof of the “CAP theorem” Mean?
Several years back, Eric Brewer of U.C. Berkeley presented the “CAP conjecture”, which he explained in these slides from his keynote speech at the PODC conference in 2004. The conjecture says that a system cannot be consistent, available, and partition-tolerant; that is, it can have two of these properties, but not all three. This idea has been very influential.
Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch, of MIT, in 2002, wrote a now-famous paper called “Brewer’s Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent Available Partition-Tolerant Web Services”. It is widely said that this paper proves the conjecture, which is now considered a theorem. Gilbert and Lynch clearly proved something, but what does the proof mean by “consistency”, “availability”, and “partition-tolerance”?
Many people refer to the proof, but not all of them have actually read the paper, thinking that it’s all obvious. I wasn’t so sure, and wanted to get to the bottom of it. There’s something about my personality that drives me to look at things all the way down to the details before I feel I understand. (This is not always a good thing: I sometimes lose track of what I originally intended to do, as I “dive down a rat-hole”, wasting time.) For at least a year, I have wanted to really figure this out.
A week ago, I came across a blog entry called “Availability and Partition Tolerance” by Jeff Darcy. You can’t imagine how happy I was to find someone who agreed that there is confusion about the terms, and that they need to be clarified. Reading Jeff’s post inspired me to finally read Gilbert and Lynch’s paper carefully and write these comments.
I had an extensive email conversation with Jeff, without whose help I could not have written this. I am very grateful for his generous assistance. I also thank Seth Gilbert for helping to clarify his paper for me. I am solely responsible for all mistakes.
I will now explain it all for you. First I’ll lay out the basic concepts and terminology. Then I’ll discuss what “C”, “A”, and “P” mean, and the “CAP theorem”. Next I’ll discuss “weak consistency”, and summarize the meaning of the proof for practical purposes.
The paper has terminology and axioms that must be laid out before the proof can be presented.
A distributed system is built of “nodes” (computers), which can (attempt to) send messages to each other over a network. But the network is not entirely reliable. There is no bound on how long a message might take to arrive. This implies that a message might “get lost”, which is effectively the same as taking an extremely long time to arrive. If a node sends a message (and does not see an acknowledgment), it has no way to know whether the message was received and processed or not, because either the request or the response might have been lost.
There are “objects”, which are abstract resources that reside on nodes. Objects can perform “operations” on other objects. Operations are synchronous: some thread issues a request and expects a response. Operations do not request other operations, so they do not do any messaging themselves.
There can be replicas of an object on more than one node, but for the most part that doesn’t affect the following discussion. An operation could “read X and return the value”, “write X”, “add X to the beginning of a queue”, etc. I’ll just say “read” for an operation that has no side-effects and returns some part of the state of the object, and “write” to mean an operation that performs side-effects.
A “client” is a thread running on some node, which can “request” an object (on any node) to perform an operation. The request is sent in a message, and the sender expects a response message, which might returns a value, and which confirms that the operation was performed. In general, more than one thread could be performing operations on one object. That is, there can be concurrent requests.
The paper says: “In this note we will not consider stopping failures, though in some cases a stopping failure can be modeled as a node existing in its own unique component of a partition.” Of course in any real distributed system, nodes can crash. But for purposes of this paper, a crash is considered to be a network failure, because from the point of view of another node, there’s no way to distinguish between the two. A crashed node behaves exactly like a node that’s off the network.
You might say that if a node goes off the network and comes back, that’s not the same as a crash because the node loses its volatile state. However, this paper does not concern itself with a distinction between volatile and durable memory. There’s no problem with that; issues of what is “in RAM” versus “on disk” are orthogonal to what this paper is about.
The paper says that consistency “is equivalent to requiring requests of the distributed shared memory to act as if they were executing on a single node, responding to operations one at a time.” They explain this more explicitly by saying that consistency is equivalent to requiring all operations (in the whole distributed system) to be “linearizable”.
“Linearizability” is a formal criterion presented in the paper “Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects”, by Maurice Herlihy and Jeannette Wing. It means (basically) that operations behave as if there were no concurrency.
The linearizability concept is based a model in which there is a set of threads, each of which can send an operation to an object, and later receive a response. Despite the fact that the operations from the different threads can overlap in time in various ways, the responses are as if each operation took place instantaneously, in some order. The order must be consistent with each thread’s own order, so that a read operation in a thread always sees the results of that thread’s own writes.
Linearizability per se does not include failure atomicity, which is the “A” (“atomic”) in “ACID”. But Gilbert and Lynch assume no node failures. So operations are atomic: they always run to completion, even if their response messages get lost.
So by “consistent” (“C”), the paper means that every object is linearizable. (That’s not what the “C” in “ACID” means, by the way, but that’s not important.) Very loosely, “consistent” means that if you get a response, it has the right answer, despite concurrency.
This is not what the “C” in “ACID transaction” means. It’s what the “I” means, namely “isolation” from concurrent operations. This is probably a source of confusion sometimes.
Furthermore, the paper says nothing about transactions, which have would have a beginning, a sequence of operations, and an end, which may commit or abort. “ACID” is talking about the entire transaction. The “linearizability” criterion only talks about individual operations on objects. (So the whole “ACID versus BASE” business, while cute, can be misleading.)
“Available” is defined as “every request received by a non-failing node in the system must result in a response.” The phrase “non-failing node” seemed to imply that some nodes might be failing and others not. But since the paper postulates that nodes never fail, I believe the phrase is redundant, and can be ignored. After the definition, the paper says “That is, any algorithm used by the service must eventually terminate.”
The problem here is that “eventually” could mean a trillion years. This definition of “available” is only useful if it includes some kind of real-time limit: the response must arrive within a period of time, which I’ll call the maximum latency.
Next, it’s very important to notice that “A” says nothing about the content of the response. It could be anything, as far as “A” is concerned; it need not be “successful” or “correct”. (If think otherwise, see section 3.2.3.)
So “available” (“A”) means: If a client sends a request to a node, it always gets back some response within L time, but there is no guarantee about contents of the response.
There is no definition, per se, of the term “partition-tolerant”, not even in section 2.3, “Partition Tolerance”.
First, what is a “partition”? They first define it to mean that there is a way to assort all the nodes into separate sets, which they call “components”, and all messages sent from a node in one component to another nodes in a separate component are lost. But then they go on to say “And any pattern of message loss can be modeled as a temporary partition separating the communicating nodes at the exact instance the message is lost.” or their formal purposes, “partition” simply means that a message can be lost. (The whole “component” business can be disregarded.) That’s probably not what you had in mind!
In real life, some messages are lost and some aren’t, and it’s not exactly clear when a “partition” situation starts, is happening, or ends. I realize that for practical purposes, we usually know what a partition means, but if we’re going to do formal proofs and understand what was proved, one must be completely clear about these terms.
Even in a local-area network, packets can be dropped. Protocols like TCP re-transmit packets until the destination acknowledges that they have arrived. If that happens, it’s clearly not a network failure from the point of view of the application. “Losing messages” must have something to do with nodes entirely unable to communicate for a “long” time compared to the latency requirements of the system.
Furthermore, remember that node failure is treated as a network failure.
So “partition-tolerant” (“P”) means that any guarantee of consistency or availability is still guaranteed even if there is a partition. In other words, if a system is not partition-tolerant, that means that if the network can lose messages or any nodes can fail, then any guarantee of atomicity or consistency is voided.
The CAP theorem says that a distributed system as described above cannot have properties C, A, and P all at the same time. You can only have two of them. There are three cases:
AP: You are guaranteed get back responses promptly (even with network partitions), but you aren’t guaranteed anything about the value/contents of the response. (See section 3.2.3.) A system like this is entirely useless, since any answer can be wrong.
CP: You are guaranteed that any response you get (even with network partitions) has a consistent (linearizable) result. But you might not get any responses whatsoever. (See section 3.2.1.) This guarantee is also completely useless, since the entire system might always behave as if it were totally down.
CA: If the network never fails (and nodes never crash, as they postulated earlier), then, unsurprisingly, life is good. But if messages could be dropped, all guarantees are off. So a CA guarantee is only useful in a totally reliable system.
At first, this seems to mean that practical, large distributed systems (which aren’t entirely reliable) can’t make any useful guarantees! What’s going on here?
Large-scale distributed systems that must be highly available can provide some kind of “weaker” consistency guarantee than linearizability. Most such systems provide what they call “eventual consistency” and may return “stale data”.
For some applications, that’s OK. Google search is an obvious case: the search is already specified/known to be using “stale” data (data since the last time Google looked at the web page), so as long as partitions are fixed quickly relative to the speed of Google’s updating everything, (and even if sometimes not, for that matter), nobody is going to complain.
Just saying that results “might be stale” and will be “eventually consistent” is unfortunately vague. How stale can it be, and how long is “eventually”? If there’s no limit, then there’s no useful guarantee.
For a staleness-type weak consistency guarantee, you’d like to be able to say something like: “operations (that read) will always return a result that was consistent with all the other operations (that write) no longer ago than time X”. And this implies that “write” operations are never lost, i.e. always happen within a fixed time bound.
Gilbert and Lynch discuss “weakened consistency” in section 4. It’s also about stale data, but with “formal requirements on the quality of stale data returned”. They call it “t-Connected Consistency”.
It makes two assumptions. (a) Every node has a clock that can be used to do timeouts. The clocks don’t have to be synchronous with each other. (b) There’s some time period after which you can assume that an unanswered message must be lost. (c) Every node processes a received message within a given, known time.
The real definition of “t-Connected Consistency” is too formal for me to explain here (see section 4.4). It (basically) guarantees (1) when there is no partition, the system is fully consistent; (2) if a partition happens, requests can see stale data; and (3) and after the partition is fixed, there’s a time limit on how long it takes for consistency to return.
Are the assumptions OK in practice? Every real computer can do timeouts, so (a) is no problem. You can always ignore any responses to messages after the time period, so (b) is OK. It’s not obvious that every system will obey (c), but some will.
I have two reservations. First, if the network is so big that it’s never entirely working at any one time, what would guarantee (3) mean? Second, in the algorithm in section 4.4, in the second step (“write at node A”), it retries as long as necessary to get a response. But that could exceed L, violating the availability guarantee.
So it’s not clear how attractive t-Connected Consistency really is. It can be hard it is to come up with formal proofs of more complicated, weakened consistency guarantees. Most working software engineers don’t think much about formal proofs, but don’t underrate them. Sometimes they can help you identifying bugs that would otherwise be hard to track down, before they happen.
Jeff Darcy wrote a blog posting about “eventual consistency” about a half year ago, which I recommend. And there are other kinds of weak consistency guarantees, such as the one provided by Amazon’s Dynamo key-store, which worth examining.
Can’t you just make the network reliable, so that messages are never lost? (“Never” meaning that the probability of losing a message is as low as other failure mode that you’re not protecting against.)
Lots and lots of experience has shown that in a network with lots of routers and such, no matter how much redundancy you add, you will experience lost messages, and you will see partitions that last for a significant amount of time. I don’t have a citation to prove this, but, ask around and that’s what experienced operators of distributed systems will always tell you.
How many routers is “lots”? How reliable is it if you have no routers (layer 3 switches), only hubs (layer 2 switches)? What if you don’t even have hubs? I don’t have answers to all this. But if you’re going to build a distributed system that depends on a reliable network, you had better ask experienced people about these questions. If it involves thousands of nodes and/or is geographically distributed, you can be sure that the network will have failures.
And again, as far as the proof of the CAP theorem is concerned, node failure is treated as a network failure. Having a perfect network does you no good if machines can crash, so you’d also need each node to be highly-available in and of itself. That would cost a lot more than using “commercial off-the-shelf” computers.
The Bottom Line
My conclusion is that the proof of the CAP theorem means, in practice: if you want to build a distributed system that is (1) large enough that nodes can fail and the network can’t be guaranteed to never lose messages, and (2) you want to get a useful response to every request within a specified maximum latency, then the best you can guarantee about the meaning of the response is that it is guaranteed to have some kind of “weak consistency”, which you had better carefully define in such a way that it’s useful.
After writing this but just before posting it, Alex Feinberg added a comment to my previous blog post with a link to this excellent post by Henry Robinson, which discusses many of the same issues and links to even more posts. If you want to read more about all this, take a look.