"We assume a model of reliable communication—messages cannot be lost (only delayed). This is a reasonable assumption if
we consider a reliable protocol, such as TCP."
Duplicated and lost messages will happen in practice - TCP attempts to build reliable communication on an unreliable medium. Not clear from the paper if this matters.
I think the larger misunderstanding of the paper is the requirement that paxos have a leader - lamport's synod algorithm does not require a leader, the leader is an optimization!
Without a long-lived leader, the performance would be so bad that I doubt there is a single production implementation that doesn't use that optimization.
Paper's network assumptions:
"We assume a model of reliable communication—messages cannot be lost (only delayed). This is a reasonable assumption if we consider a reliable protocol, such as TCP."
Paxos network assumptions:
"Messages can take arbitrarily long to be delivered, can be duplicated, and can be lost, but they are not corrupted." - http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/p...
Sounds like Paxos could be implemented on top of UDP whereas AllConcur requires TCP?
Duplicated and lost messages will happen in practice - TCP attempts to build reliable communication on an unreliable medium. Not clear from the paper if this matters.
I think the larger misunderstanding of the paper is the requirement that paxos have a leader - lamport's synod algorithm does not require a leader, the leader is an optimization!
Without a long-lived leader, the performance would be so bad that I doubt there is a single production implementation that doesn't use that optimization.
Not really fair to compare to Paxos if the network assumption is different.
How does this differ from RAFT?