calling this research quality code is an insult to research quality code.
this code almost certainly contains one or more horrifying linearizability bugs.
a library designed for distributed systems that require concurrency, but in a fairly lightweight way (i.e. state is easy to recover or repair, FSMs have fairly regular checkpoints where log tails may be discarded). It’s currently unclear if this is actually a good idea!
the tagline above, “just enough consensus” hints at what I am aiming for here. rather than relying on an external service to provide linearizable consistency, we write a strongly consistent FSM for our service cluster which contains just the state we need to be linearized, and no more. most services aim for industrial strength, this library aims in the opposite direction, to provide simple, lightweight, and naive consistency primitives for building right into your clustered applications.
- ha_supervisor (currently unimplemented):
- mostly just has the same supervisor API, maybe simplified a little
- when the vrrm app is started, the supervisor tries to form an ensemble with all other supervisors (vrrm_ha_sup) on everything in nodes()
- allows users to start new replicated fsms on all nodes or a subset (3, 5, etc)
- manages failure detection for the ensembles that it and propagation of participation information to them.
- vrrm_fsm:
- each is its own ensemble
- degenerate state-keeping, on repair, just transfer the entire serialized state of the behavior implementation and most of our own.
right now there isn’t any. the blackboard test is perhaps the best example. the library is expected to be in flux for quite some time.
the language and descriptions in the paper, while not perfect, are clearer and more implementation-oriented than either (most of) the Paxos papers or the Raft paper. Paxos is notoriously complicated to implement correctly, and Raft has few things to recommend it over VR(R) in terms of the separation of various parts of the protocol.