---
title: "6. Replication"
weight: 206
breadcrumbs: false
---

> *The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong
> is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible
> to get at or repair.*
>
> Douglas Adams, *Mostly Harmless* (1992)

*Replication* means keeping a copy of the same data on multiple machines that are connected via a
network. As discussed in [“Distributed versus Single-Node Systems”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_distributed), there are several reasons
why you might want to replicate data:

* To keep data geographically close to your users (and thus reduce access latency)
* To allow the system to continue working even if some of its parts have failed (and thus increase availability)
* To scale out the number of machines that can serve read queries (and thus increase read throughput)

In this chapter we will assume that your dataset is small enough that each machine can hold a copy of
the entire dataset. In [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding) we will relax that assumption and discuss *sharding*
(*partitioning*) of datasets that are too big for a single machine. In later chapters we will discuss
various kinds of faults that can occur in a replicated data system, and how to deal with them.

If the data that you’re replicating does not change over time, then replication is easy: you just
need to copy the data to every node once, and you’re done. All of the difficulty in replication lies
in handling *changes* to replicated data, and that’s what this chapter is about. We will discuss
three families of algorithms for replicating changes between nodes: *single-leader*, *multi-leader*,
and *leaderless* replication. Almost all distributed databases use one of these three approaches.
They all have various pros and cons, which we will examine in detail.

There are many trade-offs to consider with replication: for example, whether to use synchronous or
asynchronous replication, and how to handle failed replicas. Those are often configuration options
in databases, and although the details vary by database, the general principles are similar across
many different implementations. We will discuss the consequences of such choices in this chapter.

Replication of databases is an old topic—the principles haven’t changed much since they were
studied in the 1970s [^1], because the fundamental constraints of networks have remained the same. Despite being so old,
concepts such as *eventual consistency* still cause confusion. In [“Problems with Replication Lag”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_lag) we will
get more precise about eventual consistency and discuss things like the *read-your-writes* and
*monotonic reads* guarantees.

--------

> [!TIP] BACKUPS AND REPLICATION

You might be wondering whether you still need backups if you have replication. The answer is yes,
because they have different purposes: replicas quickly reflect writes from one node on other nodes,
but backups store old snapshots of the data so that you can go back in time. If you accidentally
delete some data, replication doesn’t help since the deletion will have also been propagated to the
replicas, so you need a backup if you want to restore the deleted data.

In fact, replication and backups are often complementary to each other. Backups are sometimes part
of the process of setting up replication, as we shall see in [“Setting Up New Followers”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_new_replica).
Conversely, archiving replication logs can be part of a backup process.

Some databases internally maintain immutable snapshots of past states, which serve as a kind of
internal backup. However, this means keeping old versions of the data on the same storage media as
the current state. If you have a large amount of data, it can be cheaper to keep the backups of old
data in an object store that is optimized for infrequently-accessed data, and to store only the
current state of the database in primary storage.

--------

## Single-Leader Replication

Each node that stores a copy of the database is called a *replica*. With multiple replicas, a
question inevitably arises: how do we ensure that all the data ends up on all the replicas?

Every write to the database needs to be processed by every replica; otherwise, the replicas would no
longer contain the same data. The most common solution is called *leader-based replication*,
*primary-backup*, or *active/passive*. It works as follows (see [Figure 6-1](/en/ch6#fig_replication_leader_follower)):

1. One of the replicas is designated the *leader* (also known as *primary* or *source* [^2]).
   When clients want to write to the database, they must send their requests to the leader, which
   first writes the new data to its local storage.
2. The other replicas are known as *followers* (*read replicas*, *secondaries*, or *hot standbys*).
   Whenever the leader writes new data to its local storage, it also sends the data change to all of
   its followers as part of a *replication log* or *change stream*. Each follower takes the log
   from the leader and updates its local copy of the database accordingly, by applying all writes in
   the same order as they were processed on the leader.
3. When a client wants to read from the database, it can query either the leader or any of the
   followers. However, writes are only accepted on the leader (the followers are read-only from the
   client’s point of view).

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0601.png" id="fig_replication_leader_follower" caption="Figure 6-1. Single-leader replication directs all writes to a designated leader, which sends a stream of changes to the follower replicas." class="w-full my-4" >}}

If the database is sharded (see [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding)), each shard has one leader. Different shards may
have their leaders on different nodes, but each shard must nevertheless have one leader node. In
[“Multi-Leader Replication”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_multi_leader) we will discuss an alternative model in which a system may have
multiple leaders for the same shard at the same time.

Single-leader replication is very widely used. It’s a built-in feature of many relational databases,
such as PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle Data Guard [^3], and SQL Server’s Always On Availability Groups [^4].
It is also used in some document databases such as MongoDB and DynamoDB [^5],
message brokers such as Kafka, replicated block devices such as DRBD, and some network filesystems.
Many consensus algorithms such as Raft, which is used for replication in CockroachDB [^6], TiDB [^7],
etcd, and RabbitMQ quorum queues (among others), are also based on a single leader, and automatically 
elect a new leader if the old one fails (we will discuss consensus in more detail in [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency)).

--------

> [!NOTE]
> In older documents you may see the term *master–slave replication*. It means the same as
> leader-based replication, but the term should be avoided as it is widely considered offensive [^8].

--------

### Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Replication

An important detail of a replicated system is whether the replication happens *synchronously* or
*asynchronously*. (In relational databases, this is often a configurable option; other systems are
often hardcoded to be either one or the other.)

Think about what happens in [Figure 6-1](/en/ch6#fig_replication_leader_follower), where the user of a website updates
their profile image. At some point in time, the client sends the update request to the leader;
shortly afterward, it is received by the leader. At some point, the leader forwards the data change
to the followers. Eventually, the leader notifies the client that the update was successful.
[Figure 6-2](/en/ch6#fig_replication_sync_replication) shows one possible way how the timings could work out.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0602.png" id="fig_replication_sync_replication" caption="Figure 6-2. Leader-based replication with one synchronous and one asynchronous follower." class="w-full my-4" >}}

In the example of [Figure 6-2](/en/ch6#fig_replication_sync_replication), the replication to follower 1 is
*synchronous*: the leader waits until follower 1 has confirmed that it received the write before
reporting success to the user, and before making the write visible to other clients. The replication
to follower 2 is *asynchronous*: the leader sends the message, but doesn’t wait for a response from
the follower.

The diagram shows that there is a substantial delay before follower 2 processes the message.
Normally, replication is quite fast: most database systems apply changes to followers in less than a
second. However, there is no guarantee of how long it might take. There are circumstances when
followers might fall behind the leader by several minutes or more; for example, if a follower is
recovering from a failure, if the system is operating near maximum capacity, or if there are network
problems between the nodes.

The advantage of synchronous replication is that the follower is guaranteed to have an up-to-date
copy of the data that is consistent with the leader. If the leader suddenly fails, we can be sure
that the data is still available on the follower. The disadvantage is that if the synchronous
follower doesn’t respond (because it has crashed, or there is a network fault, or for any other
reason), the write cannot be processed. The leader must block all writes and wait until the
synchronous replica is available again.

For that reason, it is impracticable for all followers to be synchronous: any one node outage would
cause the whole system to grind to a halt. In practice, if a database offers synchronous
replication, it often means that *one* of the followers is synchronous, and the others are
asynchronous. If the synchronous follower becomes unavailable or slow, one of the asynchronous
followers is made synchronous. This guarantees that you have an up-to-date copy of the data on at
least two nodes: the leader and one synchronous follower. This configuration is sometimes also
called *semi-synchronous*.

In some systems, a *majority* (e.g., 3 out of 5 replicas, including the leader) of replicas is
updated synchronously, and the remaining minority is asynchronous. This is an example of a *quorum*,
which we will discuss further in [“Quorums for reading and writing”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_quorum_condition). Majority quorums are often
used in systems that use a consensus protocol for automatic leader election, which we will return to
in [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency).

Sometimes, leader-based replication is configured to be completely asynchronous. In this case, if the
leader fails and is not recoverable, any writes that have not yet been replicated to followers are
lost. This means that a write is not guaranteed to be durable, even if it has been confirmed to the
client. However, a fully asynchronous configuration has the advantage that the leader can continue
processing writes, even if all of its followers have fallen behind.

Weakening durability may sound like a bad trade-off, but asynchronous replication is nevertheless
widely used, especially if there are many followers or if they are geographically distributed [^9].
We will return to this issue in [“Problems with Replication Lag”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_lag).

### Setting Up New Followers

From time to time, you need to set up new followers—perhaps to increase the number of replicas,
or to replace failed nodes. How do you ensure that the new follower has an accurate copy of the
leader’s data?

Simply copying data files from one node to another is typically not sufficient: clients are
constantly writing to the database, and the data is always in flux, so a standard file copy would
see different parts of the database at different points in time. The result might not make any
sense.

You could make the files on disk consistent by locking the database (making it unavailable for
writes), but that would go against our goal of high availability. Fortunately, setting up a
follower can usually be done without downtime. Conceptually, the process looks like this:

1. Take a consistent snapshot of the leader’s database at some point in time—if possible, without
   taking a lock on the entire database. Most databases have this feature, as it is also required
   for backups. In some cases, third-party tools are needed, such as Percona XtraBackup for MySQL.
2. Copy the snapshot to the new follower node.
3. The follower connects to the leader and requests all the data changes that have happened since
   the snapshot was taken. This requires that the snapshot is associated with an exact position in
   the leader’s replication log. That position has various names: for example, PostgreSQL calls it
   the *log sequence number*; MySQL has two mechanisms, *binlog coordinates* and *global transaction
   identifiers* (GTIDs).
4. When the follower has processed the backlog of data changes since the snapshot, we say it has
   *caught up*. It can now continue to process data changes from the leader as they happen.

The practical steps of setting up a follower vary significantly by database. In some systems the
process is fully automated, whereas in others it can be a somewhat arcane multi-step workflow that
needs to be manually performed by an administrator.

You can also archive the replication log to an object store; along with periodic snapshots of the
whole database in the object store this is a good way of implementing database backups and disaster
recovery. You can also perform steps 1 and 2 of setting up a new follower by downloading those files
from the object store. For example, WAL-G does this for PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQL Server, and
Litestream does the equivalent for SQLite.

--------

> [!TIP] DATABASES BACKED BY OBJECT STORAGE

Object storage can be used for more than archiving data. Many databases are beginning to use object
stores such as Amazon Web Services S3, Google Cloud Storage, and Azure Blob Storage to serve data
for live queries. Storing database data in object storage has many benefits:

* Object storage is inexpensive compared to other cloud storage options, which allow cloud databases
  to store less-often queried data on cheaper, higher-latency storage while serving the working set
  from memory, SSDs, and NVMe.
* Object stores also provide multi-zone, dual-region, or multi-region replication with very high
  durability guarantees. This also allows databases to bypass inter-zone network fees.
* Databases can use an object store’s *conditional write* feature—essentially, a *compare-and-set*
  (CAS) operation—to implement transactions and leadership election [^10] [^11]
* Storing data from multiple databases in the same object store can simplify data integration,
  particularly when open formats such as Apache Parquet and Apache Iceberg are used.

These benefits dramatically simplify the database architecture by shifting the responsibility of
transactions, leadership election, and replication to object storage.

Systems that adopt object storage for replication must grapple with some tradeoffs. Notably, object
stores have much higher read and write latencies than local disks or virtual block devices such as
EBS. Many cloud providers also charge a per-API call fee, which forces systems to batch reads and
writes to reduce cost. Such batching further increases latency. Moreover, many object stores do not
offer standard filesystem interfaces. This prevents systems that lack object storage integration
from leveraging object storage. Interfaces such as *filesystem in userspace* (FUSE) allow operators
to mount object store buckets as filesystems that applications can use without knowing their data is
stored on object storage. Still, many FUSE interfaces to object stores lack POSIX features such as
non-sequential writes or symlinks, which systems might depend on.

Different systems deal with these trade-offs in various ways. Some introduce a *tiered storage*
architecture that places less frequently accessed data on object storage while new or frequently
accessed data is kept on faster storage devices such as SSDs, NVMe, or even in memory. Other systems
use object storage as their primary storage tier, but use a separate low-latency storage system such
as Amazon’s EBS or Neon’s Safekeepers [^12]) to store their WAL. Recently, some systems have gone even farther by adopting a
*zero-disk architecture* (ZDA). ZDA-based systems persist all data to object storage and use disks
and memory strictly for caching. This allows nodes to have no persistent state, which dramatically
simplifies operations. WarpStream, Confluent Freight, Buf’s Bufstream, and Redpanda Serverless are
all Kafka-compatible systems built using a zero-disk architecture. Nearly every modern cloud data
warehouse also adopts such an architecture, as does Turbopuffer (a vector search engine), and
SlateDB (a cloud-native LSM storage engine).

--------

### Handling Node Outages

Any node in the system can go down, perhaps unexpectedly due to a fault, but just as likely due to
planned maintenance (for example, rebooting a machine to install a kernel security patch). Being
able to reboot individual nodes without downtime is a big advantage for operations and maintenance.
Thus, our goal is to keep the system as a whole running despite individual node failures, and to keep
the impact of a node outage as small as possible.

How do you achieve high availability with leader-based replication?

#### Follower failure: Catch-up recovery

On its local disk, each follower keeps a log of the data changes it has received from the leader. If
a follower crashes and is restarted, or if the network between the leader and the follower is
temporarily interrupted, the follower can recover quite easily: from its log, it knows the last
transaction that was processed before the fault occurred. Thus, the follower can connect to the
leader and request all the data changes that occurred during the time when the follower was
disconnected. When it has applied these changes, it has caught up to the leader and can continue
receiving a stream of data changes as before.

Although follower recovery is conceptually simple, it can be challenging in terms of performance: if
the database has a high write throughput or if the follower has been offline for a long time, there
might be a lot of writes to catch up on. There will be high load on both the recovering follower and
the leader (which needs to send the backlog of writes to the follower) while this catch-up is ongoing.

The leader can delete its log of writes once all followers have confirmed that they have processed
it, but if a follower is unavailable for a long time, the leader faces a choice: either it retains
the log until the follower recovers and catches up (at the risk of running out of disk space on the
leader), or it deletes the log that the unavailable follower has not yet acknowledged (in which case
the follower won’t be able to recover from the log, and will have to be restored from a backup when
it comes back).

#### Leader failure: Failover

Handling a failure of the leader is trickier: one of the followers needs to be promoted to be the
new leader, clients need to be reconfigured to send their writes to the new leader, and the other
followers need to start consuming data changes from the new leader. This process is called
*failover*.

Failover can happen manually (an administrator is notified that the leader has failed and takes the
necessary steps to make a new leader) or automatically. An automatic failover process usually
consists of the following steps:

1. *Determining that the leader has failed.* There are many things that could potentially go wrong:
   crashes, power outages, network issues, and more. There is no foolproof way of detecting what
   has gone wrong, so most systems simply use a timeout: nodes frequently bounce messages back and
   forth between each other, and if a node doesn’t respond for some period of time—say, 30
   seconds—it is assumed to be dead. (If the leader is deliberately taken down for planned
   maintenance, this doesn’t apply.)
2. *Choosing a new leader.* This could be done through an election process (where the leader is chosen by
   a majority of the remaining replicas), or a new leader could be appointed by a previously
   established *controller node* [^13].
   The best candidate for leadership is usually the replica with the most up-to-date data changes
   from the old leader (to minimize any data loss). Getting all the nodes to agree on a new leader
   is a consensus problem, discussed in detail in [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency).
3. *Reconfiguring the system to use the new leader.* Clients now need to send
   their write requests to the new leader (we discuss this
   in [“Request Routing”](/en/ch7#sec_sharding_routing)). If the old leader comes back, it might still believe that it is
   the leader, not realizing that the other replicas have
   forced it to step down. The system needs to ensure that the old leader becomes a follower and
   recognizes the new leader.

Failover is fraught with things that can go wrong:

* If asynchronous replication is used, the new leader may not have received all the writes from the old
  leader before it failed. If the former leader rejoins the cluster after a new leader has been
  chosen, what should happen to those writes? The new leader may have received conflicting writes
  in the meantime. The most common solution is for the old leader’s unreplicated writes to simply be
  discarded, which means that writes you believed to be committed actually weren’t durable after all.
* Discarding writes is especially dangerous if other storage systems outside of the database need to
  be coordinated with the database contents. For example, in one incident at GitHub [^14],
  an out-of-date MySQL follower
  was promoted to leader. The database used an autoincrementing counter to assign primary keys to
  new rows, but because the new leader’s counter lagged behind the old leader’s, it reused some
  primary keys that were previously assigned by the old leader. These primary keys were also used in
  a Redis store, so the reuse of primary keys resulted in inconsistency between MySQL and Redis,
  which caused some private data to be disclosed to the wrong users.
* In certain fault scenarios (see [Chapter 9](/en/ch9#ch_distributed)), it could happen that two nodes both believe
  that they are the leader. This situation is called *split brain*, and it is dangerous: if both
  leaders accept writes, and there is no process for resolving conflicts (see
  [“Multi-Leader Replication”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_multi_leader)), data is likely to be lost or corrupted. As a safety catch, some
  systems have a mechanism to shut down one node if two leaders are detected. However, if this
  mechanism is not carefully designed, you can end up with both nodes being shut down [^15].
  Moreover, there is a risk that by the time the split brain is detected and the old node is shut
  down, it is already too late and data has already been corrupted.
* What is the right timeout before the leader is declared dead? A longer timeout means a longer
  time to recovery in the case where the leader fails. However, if the timeout is too short, there
  could be unnecessary failovers. For example, a temporary load spike could cause a node’s response
  time to increase above the timeout, or a network glitch could cause delayed packets. If the system
  is already struggling with high load or network problems, an unnecessary failover is likely to
  make the situation worse, not better.

--------

> [!NOTE]
> Guarding against split brain by limiting or shutting down old leaders is known as *fencing* or, more
> emphatically, *Shoot The Other Node In The Head* (STONITH). We will discuss fencing in more detail
> in [“Distributed Locks and Leases”](/en/ch9#sec_distributed_lock_fencing).

--------

There are no easy solutions to these problems. For this reason, some operations teams prefer to
perform failovers manually, even if the software supports automatic failover.

The most important thing with failover is to pick an up-to-date follower as the new leader—if
synchronous or semi-synchronous replication is used, this would be the follower that the old leader
waited for before acknowledging writes. With asynchronous replication, you can pick the follower
with the greatest log sequence number. This minimizes the amount of data that is lost during
failover: losing a fraction of a second of writes may be tolerable, but picking a follower that is
behind by several days could be catastrophic.

These issues—node failures; unreliable networks; and trade-offs around replica consistency,
durability, availability, and latency—are in fact fundamental problems in distributed systems.
In [Chapter 9](/en/ch9#ch_distributed) and [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency) we will discuss them in greater depth.

### Implementation of Replication Logs

How does leader-based replication work under the hood? Several different replication methods are
used in practice, so let’s look at each one briefly.

#### Statement-based replication

In the simplest case, the leader logs every write request (*statement*) that it executes and sends
that statement log to its followers. For a relational database, this means that every `INSERT`,
`UPDATE`, or `DELETE` statement is forwarded to followers, and each follower parses and executes
that SQL statement as if it had been received from a client.

Although this may sound reasonable, there are various ways in which this approach to replication can
break down:

* Any statement that calls a nondeterministic function, such as `NOW()` to get the current date
  and time or `RAND()` to get a random number, is likely to generate a different value on each
  replica.
* If statements use an autoincrementing column, or if they depend on the existing data in the
  database (e.g., `UPDATE …​ WHERE <some condition>`), they must be executed in exactly the same
  order on each replica, or else they may have a different effect. This can be limiting when there
  are multiple concurrently executing transactions.
* Statements that have side effects (e.g., triggers, stored procedures, user-defined functions) may
  result in different side effects occurring on each replica, unless the side effects are absolutely
  deterministic.

It is possible to work around those issues—for example, the leader can replace any nondeterministic
function calls with a fixed return value when the statement is logged so that the followers all get
the same value. The idea of executing deterministic statements in a fixed order is similar to the
event sourcing model that we previously discussed in [“Event Sourcing and CQRS”](/en/ch3#sec_datamodels_events). This approach is
also known as *state machine replication*, and we will discuss the theory behind it in
[“Using shared logs”](/en/ch10#sec_consistency_smr).

Statement-based replication was used in MySQL before version 5.1. It is still sometimes used today,
as it is quite compact, but by default MySQL now switches to row-based replication (discussed shortly) if
there is any nondeterminism in a statement. VoltDB uses statement-based replication, and makes it
safe by requiring transactions to be deterministic [^16]. However, determinism can be hard to guarantee 
in practice, so many databases prefer other replication methods.

#### Write-ahead log (WAL) shipping

In [Chapter 4](/en/ch4#ch_storage) we saw that a write-ahead log is needed to make B-tree storage engines robust:
every modification is first written to the WAL so that the tree can be restored to a consistent
state after a crash. Since the WAL contains all the information necessary to restore the indexes and
heap into a consistent state, we can use the exact same log to build a replica on another node:
besides writing the log to disk, the leader also sends it across the network to its followers. When
the follower processes this log, it builds a copy of the exact same files as found on the leader.

This method of replication is used in PostgreSQL and Oracle, among others [^17] [^18]
The main disadvantage is that the log describes the data on a very low level: a WAL contains details
of which bytes were changed in which disk blocks. This makes replication tightly coupled to the
storage engine. If the database changes its storage format from one version to another, it is
typically not possible to run different versions of the database software on the leader and the
followers.

That may seem like a minor implementation detail, but it can have a big operational impact. If the
replication protocol allows the follower to use a newer software version than the leader, you can
perform a zero-downtime upgrade of the database software by first upgrading the followers and then
performing a failover to make one of the upgraded nodes the new leader. If the replication protocol
does not allow this version mismatch, as is often the case with WAL shipping, such upgrades require
downtime.

#### Logical (row-based) log replication

An alternative is to use different log formats for replication and for the storage engine, which
allows the replication log to be decoupled from the storage engine internals. This kind of
replication log is called a *logical log*, to distinguish it from the storage engine’s (*physical*)
data representation.

A logical log for a relational database is usually a sequence of records describing writes to
database tables at the granularity of a row:

* For an inserted row, the log contains the new values of all columns.
* For a deleted row, the log contains enough information to uniquely identify the row that was
  deleted. Typically this would be the primary key, but if there is no primary key on the table, the
  old values of all columns need to be logged.
* For an updated row, the log contains enough information to uniquely identify the updated row, and
  the new values of all columns (or at least the new values of all columns that changed).

A transaction that modifies several rows generates several such log records, followed by a record
indicating that the transaction was committed. MySQL keeps a separate logical replication log,
called the *binlog*, in addition to the WAL (when configured to use row-based replication).
PostgreSQL implements logical replication by decoding the physical WAL into row
insertion/update/delete events [^19].

Since a logical log is decoupled from the storage engine internals, it can more easily be kept
backward compatible, allowing the leader and the follower to run different versions of the database
software. This in turn enables upgrading to a new version with minimal downtime [^20].

A logical log format is also easier for external applications to parse. This aspect is useful if you want
to send the contents of a database to an external system, such as a data warehouse for offline
analysis, or for building custom indexes and caches [^21].
This technique is called *change data capture*, and we will return to it in [Link to Come].


## Problems with Replication Lag

Being able to tolerate node failures is just one reason for wanting replication. As mentioned
in [“Distributed versus Single-Node Systems”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_distributed), other reasons are scalability (processing more
requests than a single machine can handle) and latency (placing replicas geographically closer to users).

Leader-based replication requires all writes to go through a single node, but read-only queries can
go to any replica. For workloads that consist of mostly reads and only a small percentage of writes
(which is often the case with online services), there is an attractive option: create many followers, and distribute
the read requests across those followers. This removes load from the leader and allows read requests to be
served by nearby replicas.

In this *read-scaling* architecture, you can increase the capacity for serving read-only requests
simply by adding more followers. However, this approach only realistically works with asynchronous
replication—if you tried to synchronously replicate to all followers, a single node failure or
network outage would make the entire system unavailable for writing. And the more nodes you have,
the likelier it is that one will be down, so a fully synchronous configuration would be very unreliable.

Unfortunately, if an application reads from an *asynchronous* follower, it may see outdated
information if the follower has fallen behind. This leads to apparent inconsistencies in the
database: if you run the same query on the leader and a follower at the same time, you may get
different results, because not all writes have been reflected in the follower. This inconsistency is
just a temporary state—if you stop writing to the database and wait a while, the followers will
eventually catch up and become consistent with the leader. For that reason, this effect is known
as *eventual consistency* [^22].

--------

> [!NOTE]
> The term *eventual consistency* was coined by Douglas Terry et al. [^23], popularized by Werner Vogels [^24],
> and became the battle cry of many NoSQL projects. However, not only NoSQL databases are eventually
> consistent: followers in an asynchronously replicated relational database have the same characteristics.

--------

The term “eventually” is deliberately vague: in general, there is no limit to how far a replica can
fall behind. In normal operation, the delay between a write happening on the leader and being
reflected on a follower—the *replication lag*—may be only a fraction of a second, and not
noticeable in practice. However, if the system is operating near capacity or if there is a problem
in the network, the lag can easily increase to several seconds or even minutes.

When the lag is so large, the inconsistencies it introduces are not just a theoretical issue but a
real problem for applications. In this section we will highlight three examples of problems that are
likely to occur when there is replication lag. We’ll also outline some approaches to solving them.

### Reading Your Own Writes

Many applications let the user submit some data and then view what they have submitted. This might
be a record in a customer database, or a comment on a discussion thread, or something else of that sort.
When new data is submitted, it must be sent to the leader, but when the user views the data, it can
be read from a follower. This is especially appropriate if data is frequently viewed but only
occasionally written.

With asynchronous replication, there is a problem, illustrated in
[Figure 6-3](/en/ch6#fig_replication_read_your_writes): if the user views the data shortly after making a write, the
new data may not yet have reached the replica. To the user, it looks as though the data they
submitted was lost, so they will be understandably unhappy.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0603.png" id="fig_replication_read_your_writes" caption="Figure 6-3. A user makes a write, followed by a read from a stale replica. To prevent this anomaly, we need read-after-write consistency." class="w-full my-4" >}}

In this situation, we need *read-after-write consistency*, also known as *read-your-writes consistency* [^23].
This is a guarantee that if the user reloads the page, they will always see any updates they
submitted themselves. It makes no promises about other users: other users’ updates may not be
visible until some later time. However, it reassures the user that their own input has been saved
correctly.

How can we implement read-after-write consistency in a system with leader-based replication? There
are various possible techniques. To mention a few:

* When reading something that the user may have modified, read it from the leader or a synchronously
  updated follower; otherwise, read it from an asynchronously updated follower.
  This requires that you have some way of knowing whether something might have been
  modified, without actually querying it. For example, user profile information on a social network
  is normally only editable by the owner of the profile, not by anybody else. Thus, a simple
  rule is: always read the user’s own profile from the leader, and any other users’ profiles from a
  follower.
* If most things in the application are potentially editable by the user, that approach won’t be
  effective, as most things would have to be read from the leader (negating the benefit of read
  scaling). In that case, other criteria may be used to decide whether to read from the leader. For
  example, you could track the time of the last update and, for one minute after the last update, make all
  reads from the leader [^25].
  You could also monitor the replication lag on followers and prevent queries on any follower that
  is more than one minute behind the leader.
* The client can remember the timestamp of its most recent write—then the system can ensure that the
  replica serving any reads for that user reflects updates at least until that timestamp. If a
  replica is not sufficiently up to date, either the read can be handled by another replica or the
  query can wait until the replica has caught up [^26].
  The timestamp could be a *logical timestamp* (something that indicates ordering of writes, such as
  the log sequence number) or the actual system clock (in which case clock synchronization becomes
  critical; see [“Unreliable Clocks”](/en/ch9#sec_distributed_clocks)).
* If your replicas are distributed across regions (for geographical proximity to users or for
  availability), there is additional complexity. Any request that needs to be served by the leader
  must be routed to the region that contains the leader.

Another complication arises when the same user is accessing your service from multiple devices, for
example a desktop web browser and a mobile app. In this case you may want to provide *cross-device*
read-after-write consistency: if the user enters some information on one device and then views it
on another device, they should see the information they just entered.

In this case, there are some additional issues to consider:

* Approaches that require remembering the timestamp of the user’s last update become more difficult,
  because the code running on one device doesn’t know what updates have happened on the other
  device. This metadata will need to be centralized.
* If your replicas are distributed across different regions, there is no guarantee that connections
  from different devices will be routed to the same region. (For example, if the user’s desktop
  computer uses the home broadband connection and their mobile device uses the cellular data network,
  the devices’ network routes may be completely different.) If your approach requires reading from the
  leader, you may first need to route requests from all of a user’s devices to the same region.

--------

> ![TIP] Regions and Availability Zones

We use the term *region* to refer to one or more datacenters in a single geographic location. Cloud
providers locate multiple datacenters in the same geographic region. Each datacenter is referred to
as an *availability zone* or simply *zone*. Thus, a single cloud region is made up of multiple
zones. Each zone is a separate datacenter located in separate physical facility with its own
power, cooling, and so on.

Zones in the same region are connected by very high speed network connections. Latency is low enough
that most distributed systems can run with nodes spread across multiple zones in the same region as
though they were in a single zone. Multi-zone configurations allow distributed systems to survive
zonal outages where one zone goes offline, but they do not protect against regional outages where
all zones in a region are unavailable. To survive a regional outage, a distributed system must be
deployed across multiple regions, which can result in higher latencies, lower throughput, and
increased cloud networking bills. We will discuss these tradeoffs more in
[“Multi-leader replication topologies”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_topologies). For now, just know that when we say region, we mean a collection of
zones/datacenters in a single geographic location.

--------

### Monotonic Reads

Our second example of an anomaly that can occur when reading from asynchronous followers is that it’s
possible for a user to see things *moving backward in time*.

This can happen if a user makes several reads from different replicas. For example,
[Figure 6-4](/en/ch6#fig_replication_monotonic_reads) shows user 2345 making the same query twice, first to a follower
with little lag, then to a follower with greater lag. (This scenario is quite likely if the user
refreshes a web page, and each request is routed to a random server.) The first query returns a
comment that was recently added by user 1234, but the second query doesn’t return anything because
the lagging follower has not yet picked up that write. In effect, the second query observes the
system state at an earlier point in time than the first query. This wouldn’t be so bad if the first query
hadn’t returned anything, because user 2345 probably wouldn’t know that user 1234 had recently added
a comment. However, it’s very confusing for user 2345 if they first see user 1234’s comment appear,
and then see it disappear again.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0604.png" id="fig_replication_monotonic_reads" caption="Figure 6-4. A user first reads from a fresh replica, then from a stale replica. Time appears to go backward. To prevent this anomaly, we need monotonic reads." class="w-full my-4" >}}

*Monotonic reads* [^22] is a guarantee that this
kind of anomaly does not happen. It’s a lesser guarantee than strong consistency, but a stronger
guarantee than eventual consistency. When you read data, you may see an old value; monotonic reads
only means that if one user makes several reads in sequence, they will not see time go
backward—i.e., they will not read older data after having previously read newer data.

One way of achieving monotonic reads is to make sure that each user always makes their reads from
the same replica (different users can read from different replicas). For example, the replica can be
chosen based on a hash of the user ID, rather than randomly. However, if that replica fails, the
user’s queries will need to be rerouted to another replica.

### Consistent Prefix Reads

Our third example of replication lag anomalies concerns violation of causality. Imagine the
following short dialog between Mr. Poons and Mrs. Cake:

Mr. Poons
:   How far into the future can you see, Mrs. Cake?

Mrs. Cake
:   About ten seconds usually, Mr. Poons.

There is a causal dependency between those two sentences: Mrs. Cake heard Mr. Poons’s question and
answered it.

Now, imagine a third person is listening to this conversation through followers. The things said by
Mrs. Cake go through a follower with little lag, but the things said by Mr. Poons have a longer
replication lag (see [Figure 6-5](/en/ch6#fig_replication_consistent_prefix)). This observer would hear the following:

Mrs. Cake
:   About ten seconds usually, Mr. Poons.

Mr. Poons
:   How far into the future can you see, Mrs. Cake?

To the observer it looks as though Mrs. Cake is answering the question before Mr. Poons has even asked
it. Such psychic powers are impressive, but very confusing [^27].

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0605.png" id="fig_replication_consistent_prefix" caption="Figure 6-5. If some shards are replicated slower than others, an observer may see the answer before they see the question." class="w-full my-4" >}}

Preventing this kind of anomaly requires another type of guarantee: *consistent prefix reads* [^22]. 
This guarantee says that if a sequence of writes happens in a certain order, 
then anyone reading those writes will see them appear in the same order.

This is a particular problem in sharded (partitioned) databases, which we will discuss in
[Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding). If the database always applies writes in the same order, reads always see a
consistent prefix, so this anomaly cannot happen. However, in many distributed databases, different
shards operate independently, so there is no global ordering of writes: when a user reads from the
database, they may see some parts of the database in an older state and some in a newer state.

One solution is to make sure that any writes that are causally related to each other are written to
the same shard—but in some applications that cannot be done efficiently. There are also algorithms
that explicitly keep track of causal dependencies, a topic that we will return to in
[“The “happens-before” relation and concurrency”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_happens_before).

### Solutions for Replication Lag

When working with an eventually consistent system, it is worth thinking about how the application
behaves if the replication lag increases to several minutes or even hours. If the answer is “no
problem,” that’s great. However, if the result is a bad experience for users, it’s important to
design the system to provide a stronger guarantee, such as read-after-write. Pretending that
replication is synchronous when in fact it is asynchronous is a recipe for problems down the line.

As discussed earlier, there are ways in which an application can provide a stronger guarantee than
the underlying database—for example, by performing certain kinds of reads on the leader or a
synchronously updated follower. However, dealing with these issues in application code is complex
and easy to get wrong.

The simplest programming model for application developers is to choose a database that provides a
strong consistency guarantee for replicas such as linearizability (see [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency)), and ACID
transactions (see [Chapter 8](/en/ch8#ch_transactions)). This allows you to mostly ignore the challenges that arise
from replication, and treat the database as if it had just a single node. In the early 2010s the
*NoSQL* movement promoted the view that these features limited scalability, and that large-scale
systems would have to embrace eventual consistency.

However, since then, a number of databases started providing strong consistency and transactions
while also offering the fault tolerance, high availability, and scalability advantages of a
distributed database. As mentioned in [“Relational Model versus Document Model”](/en/ch3#sec_datamodels_history), this trend is known as *NewSQL* to
contrast with NoSQL (although it’s less about SQL specifically, and more about new approaches to
scalable transaction management).

Even though scalable, strongly consistent distributed databases are now available, there are still
good reasons why some applications choose to use different forms of replication that offer weaker
consistency guarantees: they can offer stronger resilience in the face of network interruptions, and
have lower overheads compared to transactional systems. We will explore such approaches in the rest
of this chapter.



## Multi-Leader Replication

So far in this chapter we have only considered replication architectures using a single leader.
Although that is a common approach, there are interesting alternatives.

Single-leader replication has one major downside: all writes must go through the one leader. If you
can’t connect to the leader for any reason, for example due to a network interruption between you
and the leader, you can’t write to the database.

A natural extension of the single-leader replication model is to allow more than one node to accept
writes. Replication still happens in the same way: each node that processes a write must forward
that data change to all the other nodes. We call this a *multi-leader* configuration (also known as
*active/active* or *bidirectional* replication). In this setup, each leader simultaneously acts as a
follower to the other leaders.

As with single-leader replication, there is a choice between making it synchronous or asynchronous.
Let’s say you have two leaders, *A* and *B*, and you’re trying to write to *A*. If writes are
synchronously replicated from *A* to *B*, and the network between the two nodes is interrupted, you
can’t write to *A* until the network comes back. Synchronous multi-leader replication thus gives you
a model that is very similar to single-leader replication, i.e. if you had made *B* the leader and
*A* simply forwards any write requests to *B* to be executed.

For that reason, we won’t go further into synchronous multi-leader replication, and simply treat it
as equivalent to single-leader replication. The rest of this section focusses on asynchronous
multi-leader replication, in which any leader can process writes even when its connection to the
other leaders is interrupted.

### Geographically Distributed Operation

It rarely makes sense to use a multi-leader setup within a single region, because the benefits
rarely outweigh the added complexity. However, there are some situations in which this configuration
is reasonable.

Imagine you have a database with replicas in several different regions (perhaps so that you can
tolerate the failure of an entire region, or perhaps in order to be closer to your users). This is
known as a *geographically distributed*, *geo-distributed* or *geo-replicated* setup. With
single-leader replication, the leader has to be in *one* of the regions, and all writes must go
through that region.

In a multi-leader configuration, you can have a leader in *each* region.
[Figure 6-6](/en/ch6#fig_replication_multi_dc) shows what this architecture might look like. Within each region,
regular leader–follower replication is used (with followers maybe in a different availability zone
from the leader); between regions, each region’s leader replicates its changes to the leaders in
other regions.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0606.png" id="fig_replication_multi_dc" caption="Figure 6-6. Multi-leader replication across multiple regions." class="w-full my-4" >}}

Let’s compare how the single-leader and multi-leader configurations fare in a multi-region deployment:

Performance
:   In a single-leader configuration, every write must go over the internet to the region with the
    leader. This can add significant latency to
    writes and might contravene the purpose of having multiple regions in the first place. In a
    multi-leader configuration, every write can be processed in the local region and is replicated
    asynchronously to the other regions. Thus, the inter-region network delay is hidden from
    users, which means the perceived performance may be better.

Tolerance of regional outages
:   In a single-leader configuration, if the region with the leader becomes unavailable, failover can
    promote a follower in another region to be leader. In a multi-leader configuration, each region
    can continue operating independently of the others, and replication catches up when the offline
    region comes back online.

Tolerance of network problems
:   Even with dedicated connections, traffic between regions

    can be less reliable than traffic between zones in the same region or within a single zone. A
    single-leader configuration is very sensitive to problems in this inter-region link, because when
    a client in one region wants to write to a leader in another region, it has to send its request
    over that link and wait for the response before it can complete.

    A multi-leader configuration with asynchronous replication can tolerate network problems better:
    during a temporary network interruption, each region’s leader can continue independently processing writes.

Consistency
:   A single-leader system can provide strong consistency guarantees, such as serializable
    transactions, which we will discuss in [Chapter 8](/en/ch8#ch_transactions). The biggest downside of multi-leader
    systems is that the consistency they can achieve is much weaker. For example, you can’t guarantee
    that a bank account won’t go negative or that a username is unique: it’s always possible for
    different leaders to process writes that are individually fine (paying out some of the money in an
    account, registering a particular username), but which violate the constraint when taken together
    with another write on another leader.

    This is simply a fundamental limitation of distributed systems [^28].
    If you need to enforce such constraints, you’re therefore better off with a single-leader system.
    However, as we will see in [“Dealing with Conflicting Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_write_conflicts), multi-leader systems can still
    achieve consistency properties that are useful in a wide range of apps that don’t need such constraints.

Multi-leader replication is less common than single-leader replication, but it is still supported by
many databases, including MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, and YugabyteDB. In some cases it is an external
add-on feature, for example in Redis Enterprise, EDB Postgres Distributed, and pglogical [^29].

As multi-leader replication is a somewhat retrofitted feature in many databases, there are often
subtle configuration pitfalls and surprising interactions with other database features. For example,
autoincrementing keys, triggers, and integrity constraints can be problematic. For this reason,
multi-leader replication is often considered dangerous territory that should be avoided if possible [^30].

#### Multi-leader replication topologies

A *replication topology* describes the communication paths along which writes are propagated from
one node to another. If you have two leaders, like in [Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict), there is
only one plausible topology: leader 1 must send all of its writes to leader 2, and vice versa. With
more than two leaders, various different topologies are possible. Some examples are illustrated in
[Figure 6-7](/en/ch6#fig_replication_topologies).

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0607.png" id="fig_replication_topologies" caption="Figure 6-7. Three example topologies in which multi-leader replication can be set up." class="w-full my-4" >}}

The most general topology is *all-to-all*, shown in [Figure 6-7](/en/ch6#fig_replication_topologies)(c),
in which every leader sends its writes to every other leader. However, more restricted topologies
are also used: for example a *circular topology* in which each node receives writes from one node
and forwards those writes (plus any writes of its own) to one other node. Another popular topology
has the shape of a *star*: one designated root node forwards writes to all of the other nodes. The
star topology can be generalized to a tree.


--------

> [!NOTE]
> Don’t confuse a star-shaped network topology with a *star schema* (see
> [“Stars and Snowflakes: Schemas for Analytics”](/en/ch3#sec_datamodels_analytics)), which describes the structure of a data model.

--------

In circular and star topologies, a write may need to pass through several nodes before it reaches
all replicas. Therefore, nodes need to forward data changes they receive from other nodes. To
prevent infinite replication loops, each node is given a unique identifier, and in the replication
log, each write is tagged with the identifiers of all the nodes it has passed through [^31].
When a node receives a data change that is tagged with its own identifier, that data change is
ignored, because the node knows that it has already been processed.

#### Problems with different topologies

A problem with circular and star topologies is that if just one node fails, it can interrupt the
flow of replication messages between other nodes, leaving them unable to communicate until the
node is fixed. The topology could be reconfigured to work around the failed node, but in most
deployments such reconfiguration would have to be done manually. The fault tolerance of a more
densely connected topology (such as all-to-all) is better because it allows messages to travel
along different paths, avoiding a single point of failure.

On the other hand, all-to-all topologies can have issues too. In particular, some network links may
be faster than others (e.g., due to network congestion), with the result that some replication
messages may “overtake” others, as illustrated in [Figure 6-8](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality).

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0608.png" id="fig_replication_causality" caption="Figure 6-8. With multi-leader replication, writes may arrive in the wrong order at some replicas." class="w-full my-4" >}}

In [Figure 6-8](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality), client A inserts a row into a table on leader 1, and client B
updates that row on leader 3. However, leader 2 may receive the writes in a different order: it may
first receive the update (which, from its point of view, is an update to a row that does not exist
in the database) and only later receive the corresponding insert (which should have preceded the
update).

This is a problem of causality, similar to the one we saw in [“Consistent Prefix Reads”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_consistent_prefix):
the update depends on the prior insert, so we need to make sure that all nodes process the insert
first, and then the update. Simply attaching a timestamp to every write is not sufficient, because
clocks cannot be trusted to be sufficiently in sync to correctly order these events at leader 2 (see
[Chapter 9](/en/ch9#ch_distributed)).

To order these events correctly, a technique called *version vectors* can be used, which we will
discuss later in this chapter (see [“Detecting Concurrent Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_concurrent)). However, many multi-leader
replication systems don’t use good techniques for ordering updates, leaving them vulnerable to
issues like the one in [Figure 6-8](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality). If you are using multi-leader replication, it
is worth being aware of these issues, carefully reading the documentation, and thoroughly testing
your database to ensure that it really does provide the guarantees you believe it to have.

### Sync Engines and Local-First Software

Another situation in which multi-leader replication is appropriate is if you have an application
that needs to continue to work while it is disconnected from the internet.

For example, consider the calendar apps on your mobile phone, your laptop, and other devices. You
need to be able to see your meetings (make read requests) and enter new meetings (make write
requests) at any time, regardless of whether your device currently has an internet connection. If
you make any changes while you are offline, they need to be synced with a server and your other
devices when the device is next online.

In this case, every device has a local database replica that acts as a leader (it accepts write
requests), and there is an asynchronous multi-leader replication process (sync) between the replicas
of your calendar on all of your devices. The replication lag may be hours or even days, depending on
when you have internet access available.

From an architectural point of view, this setup is very similar to multi-leader replication between
regions, taken to the extreme: each device is a “region,” and the network connection between them is
extremely unreliable.

#### Real-time collaboration, offline-first, and local-first apps

Moreover, many modern web apps offer *real-time collaboration* features, such as Google Docs and
Sheets for text documents and spreadsheets, Figma for graphics, and Linear for project management.
What makes these apps so responsive is that user input is immediately reflected in the user
interface, without waiting for a network round-trip to the server, and edits by one user are shown
to their collaborators with low latency [^32] [^33] [^34]

This again results in a multi-leader architecture: each web browser tab that has opened the shared
file is a replica, and any updates that you make to the file are asynchronously replicated to the
devices of the other users who have opened the same file. Even if the app does not allow you to
continue editing a file while offline, the fact that multiple users can make edits without waiting
for a response from the server already makes it multi-leader.

Both offline editing and real-time collaboration require a similar replication infrastructure: the
application needs to capture any changes that the user makes to a file, and either send them to
collaborators immediately (if online), or store them locally for sending later (if offline).
Additionally, the application needs to receive changes from collaborators, merge them into the
user’s local copy of the file, and update the user interface to reflect the latest version. If
multiple users have changed the file concurrently, conflict resolution logic may be needed to merge
those changes.

A software library that supports this process is called a *sync engine*. Although the idea has
existed for a long time, the term has recently gained attention [^35] [^36] [^37].
An application that allows a user to continue editing a file while offline (which may be implemented
using a sync engine) is called *offline-first* [^38].
The term *local-first software* refers to collaborative apps that are not only offline-first, but
are also designed to continue working even if the developer who made the software shuts down all of
their online services [^39].
This can be achieved by using a sync engine with an open standard sync protocol for which multiple
service providers are available [^40].
For example, Git is a local-first collaboration system (albeit one that doesn’t support real-time
collaboration) since you can sync via GitHub, GitLab, or any other repository hosting service.

#### Pros and cons of sync engines

The dominant way of building web apps today is to keep very little persistent state on the client,
and to rely on making requests to a server whenever a new piece of data needs to be displayed or
some data needs to be updated. In contrast, when using a sync engine, you have persistent state on
the client, and communication with the server is moved into a background process. The sync engine
approach has a number of advantages:

* Having the data locally means the user interface can be much faster to respond than if it had to
  wait for a service call to fetch some data. Some apps aim to respond to user input in the *next
  frame* of the graphics system, which means rendering within 16 ms on a display with a
  60 Hz refresh rate.
* Allowing users to continue working while offline is valuable, especially on mobile devices with
  intermittent connectivity. With a sync engine, an app doesn’t need a separate offline mode: being
  offline is the same as having very large network delay.
* A sync engine simplifies the programming model for frontend apps, compared to performing explicit
  service calls in application code. Every service call requires error handling, as discussed in
  [“The problems with remote procedure calls (RPCs)”](/en/ch5#sec_problems_with_rpc): for example, if a request to update data on a server fails, the user
  interface needs to somehow reflect that error. A sync engine allows the app to perform reads and
  writes on local data, which almost never fails, leading to a more declarative programming style [^41].
* In order to display edits from other users in real-time, you need to receive notifications of
  those edits and efficiently update the user interface accordingly. A sync engine combined with a
  *reactive programming* model is a good way of implementing this [^42].

Sync engines work best when all the data that the user may need is downloaded in advance and stored
persistently on the client. This means that the data is available for offline access when needed,
but it also means that sync engines are not suitable if the user has access to a very large amount
of data. For example, downloading all the files that the user themselves created is probably fine
(one user generally doesn’t generate that much data), but downloading the entire catalog of an
e-commerce website probably doesn’t make sense.

The sync engine was pioneered by Lotus Notes in the 1980s [^43]
(without using that term), and sync for specific apps such as calendars has also existed for a long
time. Today there are a number of general-purpose sync engines, some of which use a proprietary
backend service (e.g., Google Firestore, Realm, or Ditto), and some have an open source backend,
making them suitable for creating local-first software (e.g., PouchDB/CouchDB, Automerge, or Yjs).

Multiplayer video games have a similar need to respond immediately to the user’s local actions, and
reconcile them with other players’ actions received asynchronously over the network. In game
development jargon the equivalent of a sync engine is called *netcode*. The techniques used in
netcode are quite specific to the requirements of games [^44], and don’t directly
carry over to other types of software, so we won’t consider them further in this book.


### Dealing with Conflicting Writes

The biggest problem with multi-leader replication—both in a geo-distributed server-side database and
a local-first sync engine on end user devices—is that concurrent writes on different leaders can
lead to conflicts that need to be resolved.

For example, consider a wiki page that is simultaneously being edited by two users, as shown in
[Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict). User 1 changes the title of the page from A to B, and user 2
independently changes the title from A to C. Each user’s change is successfully applied to their
local leader. However, when the changes are asynchronously replicated, a conflict is detected.
This problem does not occur in a single-leader database.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0609.png" id="fig_replication_write_conflict" caption="Figure 6-9. A write conflict caused by two leaders concurrently updating the same record." class="w-full my-4" >}}

> [!NOTE]
> We say that the two writes in [Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict) are *concurrent* because neither
> was “aware” of the other at the time the write was originally made. It doesn’t matter whether the
> writes literally happened at the same time; indeed, if the writes were made while offline, they
> might have actually happened some time apart. What matters is whether one write occurred in a state
> where the other write has already taken effect.

In [“Detecting Concurrent Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_concurrent) we will tackle the question of how a database can determine
whether two writes are concurrent. For now we will assume that we can detect conflicts, and we want
to figure out the best way of resolving them.

#### Conflict avoidance

One strategy for conflicts is to avoid them occurring in the first place. For example, if the
application can ensure that all writes for a particular record go through the same leader, then
conflicts cannot occur, even if the database as a whole is multi-leader. This approach is not
possible in the case of a sync engine client being updated offline, but it is sometimes possible in
geo-replicated server systems [^30].

For example, in an application where a user can only edit their own data, you can ensure that
requests from a particular user are always routed to the same region and use the leader in that
region for reading and writing. Different users may have different “home” regions (perhaps picked
based on geographic proximity to the user), but from any one user’s point of view the configuration
is essentially single-leader.

However, sometimes you might want to change the designated leader for a record—perhaps because
one region is unavailable and you need to reroute traffic to another region, or perhaps because
a user has moved to a different location and is now closer to a different region. There is now a
risk that the user performs a write while the change of designated leader is in progress, leading to
a conflict that would have to be resolved using one of the methods below. Thus, conflict avoidance
breaks down if you allow the leader to be changed.

Another example of conflict avoidance: imagine you want to insert new records and generate unique
IDs for them based on an auto-incrementing counter. If you have two leaders, you could set them up
so that one leader only generates odd numbers and the other only generates even numbers. That way
you can be sure that the two leaders won’t concurrently assign the same ID to different records.
We will discuss other ID assignment schemes in [“ID Generators and Logical Clocks”](/en/ch10#sec_consistency_logical).


#### Last write wins (discarding concurrent writes)

If conflicts can’t be avoided, the simplest way of resolving them is to attach a timestamp to each
write, and to always use the value with the greatest timestamp. For example, in
[Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict), let’s say that the timestamp of user 1’s write is greater than
the timestamp of user 2’s write. In that case, both leaders will determine that the new title of the
page should be B, and they discard the write that sets it to C. If the writes coincidentally have
the same timestamp, the winner can be chosen by comparing the values (e.g., in the case of strings,
taking the one that’s earlier in the alphabet).

This approach is called *last write wins* (LWW) because the write with the greatest timestamp can be
considered the “last” one. The term is misleading though, because when two writes are concurrent
like in [Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict), which one is older and which is later is undefined, and
so the timestamp order of concurrent writes is essentially random.

Therefore the real meaning of LWW is: when the same record is concurrently written on different
leaders, one of those writes is randomly chosen to be the winner, and the other writes are silently
discarded, even though they were successfully processed at their respective leaders. This achieves
the goal that eventually all replicas end up in a consistent state, but at the cost of data loss.

If you can avoid conflicts—for example, by only inserting records with a unique key such as a UUID,
and never updating them—then LWW is no problem. But if you update existing
records, or if different leaders may insert records with the same key, then you have to decide
whether lost updates are a problem for your application. If lost updates are not acceptable, you
need to use one of the conflict resolution approaches described below.

Another problem with LWW is that if a real-time clock (e.g. a Unix timestamp) is used as timestamp
for the writes, the system becomes very sensitive to clock synchronization. If one node has a clock
that is ahead of the others, and you try to overwrite a value written by that node, your write may
be ignored as it may have a lower timestamp, even though it clearly occurred later. This problem can
be solved by using a *logical clock*, which we will discuss in [“ID Generators and Logical Clocks”](/en/ch10#sec_consistency_logical).

#### Manual conflict resolution

If randomly discarding some of your writes is not desirable, the next option is to resolve the
conflict manually. You may be familiar with manual conflict resolution from Git and other version
control systems: if commits on two different branches edit the same lines of the same file, and you
try to merge those branches, you will get a merge conflict that needs to be resolved before the
merge is complete.

In a database, it would be impractical for a conflict to stop the entire replication process until a
human has resolved it. Instead, databases typically store all the concurrently written values for a
given record—for example, both B and C in [Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict). These values are
sometimes called *siblings*. The next time you query that record, the database returns *all* those
values, rather than just the latest one. You can then resolve those values in whatever way you want,
either automatically in application code (for example, you could concatenate B and C into “B/C”), or
by asking the user. You then write back a new value to the database to resolve the conflict.

This approach to conflict resolution is used in some systems, such as CouchDB. However, it also
suffers from a number of problems:

* The API of the database changes: for example, where previously the title of the wiki page was just
  a string, it now becomes a set of strings that usually contains one element, but may sometimes
  contain multiple elements if there is a conflict. This can make the data awkward to work with in
  application code.
* Asking the user to manually merge the siblings is a lot of work, both for the app developer (who
  needs to build the user interface for conflict resolution) and for the user (who may be confused
  about what they are being asked to do, and why). In many cases, it’s better to merge automatically
  than to bother the user.
* Merging siblings automatically can lead to surprising behavior if it is not done carefully. For
  example, the shopping cart on Amazon used to allow concurrent updates, which were then merged by
  keeping all the shopping cart items that appeared in any of the siblings (i.e., taking the set
  union of the carts). This meant that if the customer had removed an item from their cart in one
  sibling, but another sibling still contained that old item, the removed item would unexpectedly
  reappear in the customer’s cart [^45]. [Figure 6-10](/en/ch6#fig_replication_amazon_anomaly) shows an example where Device 1 removes Book from the shopping
  cart and concurrently Device 2 removes DVD, but after merging the conflict both items reappear.
* If multiple nodes observe the conflict and concurrently resolve it, the conflict resolution
  process can itself introduce a new conflict. Those resolutions could even be inconsistent: for
  example, one node may merge B and C into “B/C” and another may merge them into “C/B” if you are
  not careful to order them consistently. When the conflict between “B/C” and “C/B” is merged, it
  may result in “B/C/C/B” or something similarly surprising.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0610.png" id="fig_replication_amazon_anomaly" caption="Figure 6-10. Example of Amazon's shopping cart anomaly: if conflicts on a shopping cart are merged by taking the union, deleted items may reappear." class="w-full my-4" >}}


#### Automatic conflict resolution

For many applications, the best way of handling conflicts is to use an algorithm that automatically
merges concurrent writes into a consistent state. Automatic conflict resolution ensures that all
replicas *converge* to the same state—i.e., all replicas that have processed the same set of writes
have the same state, regardless of the order in which the writes arrived.

LWW is a simple example of a conflict resolution algorithm. More sophisticated merge algorithms have
been developed for different types of data, with the goal of preserving the intended effect of all
updates as much as possible, and hence avoiding data loss:

* If the data is text (e.g., the title or body of a wiki page), we can detect which characters have
  been inserted or deleted from one version to the next. The merged result then preserves all the
  insertions and deletions made in any of the siblings. If users concurrently insert text at the
  same position, it can be ordered deterministically so that all nodes get the same merged outcome.
* If the data is a collection of items (ordered like a to-do list, or unordered like a shopping
  cart), we can merge it similarly to text by tracking insertions and deletions. To avoid the
  shopping cart issue in [Figure 6-10](/en/ch6#fig_replication_amazon_anomaly), the algorithms track the fact that Book
  and DVD were deleted, so the merged result is Cart = {Soap}.
* If the data is an integer representing a counter that can be incremented or decremented (e.g., the
  number of likes on a social media post), the merge algorithm can tell how many increments and
  decrements happened on each sibling, and add them together correctly so that the result does not
  double-count and does not drop updates.
* If the data is a key-value mapping, we can merge updates to the same key by applying one of the
  other conflict resolution algorithms to the values under that key. Updates to different keys can
  be handled independently from each other.

There are limits to what is possible with conflict resolution. For example, if you want to enforce
that a list contains no more than five items, and multiple users concurrently add items to the list
so that there are more than five in total, your only option is to drop some of the items.
Nevertheless, automatic conflict resolution is sufficient to build many useful apps. And if you
start from the requirement of wanting to build a collaborative offline-first or local-first app,
then conflict resolution is inevitable, and automating it is often the best approach.

### CRDTs and Operational Transformation

Two families of algorithms are commonly used to implement automatic conflict resolution:
*Conflict-free replicated datatypes* (CRDTs) [^46] and *Operational Transformation* (OT) [^47].
They have different design philosophies and performance characteristics, but both are able to
perform automatic merges for all the aforementioned types of data.

[Figure 6-11](/en/ch6#fig_replication_ot_crdt) shows an example of how OT and a CRDT merge concurrent updates to a
text. Assume you have two replicas that both start off with the text “ice”. One replica prepends the
letter “n” to make “nice”, while concurrently the other replica appends an exclamation mark to make “ice!”.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0611.png" id="fig_replication_ot_crdt" caption="Figure 6-11. How two concurrent insertions into a string are merged by OT and a CRDT respectively." class="w-full my-4" >}}

The merged result “nice!” is achieved differently by both types of algorithms:

OT
:   We record the index at which characters are inserted or deleted: “n” is inserted at index 0, and
    “!” at index 3. Next, the replicas exchange their operations. The insertion of “n” at 0 can be
    applied as-is, but if the insertion of “!” at 3 were applied to the state “nice” we would get
    “nic!e”, which is incorrect. We therefore need to transform the index of each operation to account
    for concurrent operations that have already been applied; in this case, the insertion of “!” is
    transformed to index 4 to account for the insertion of “n” at an earlier index.

CRDT
:   Most CRDTs give each character a unique, immutable ID and use those to determine the positions of
    insertions/deletions, instead of indexes. For example, in [Figure 6-11](/en/ch6#fig_replication_ot_crdt) we assign
    the ID 1A to “i”, the ID 2A to “c”, etc. When inserting the exclamation mark, we generate an
    operation containing the ID of the new character (4B) and the ID of the existing character after
    which we want to insert (3A). To insert at the beginning of the string we give “nil” as the
    preceding character ID. Concurrent insertions at the same position are ordered by the IDs of the
    characters. This ensures that replicas converge without performing any transformation.

There are many algorithms based on variations of these ideas. Lists/arrays can be supported
similarly, using list elements instead of characters, and other datatypes such as key-value maps can
be added quite easily. There are some performance and functionality trade-offs between OT and CRDTs,
but it’s possible to combine the advantages of CRDTs and OT in one algorithm [^48].

OT is most often used for real-time collaborative editing of text, e.g. in Google Docs [^32], whereas CRDTs can be found in
distributed databases such as Redis Enterprise, Riak, and Azure Cosmos DB [^49].
Sync engines for JSON data can be implemented both with CRDTs (e.g., Automerge or Yjs) and with OT (e.g., ShareDB).

#### What is a conflict?

Some kinds of conflict are obvious. In the example in [Figure 6-9](/en/ch6#fig_replication_write_conflict), two writes
concurrently modified the same field in the same record, setting it to two different values. There
is little doubt that this is a conflict.

Other kinds of conflict can be more subtle to detect. For example, consider a meeting room booking
system: it tracks which room is booked by which group of people at which time. This application
needs to ensure that each room is only booked by one group of people at any one time (i.e., there
must not be any overlapping bookings for the same room). In this case, a conflict may arise if two
different bookings are created for the same room at the same time. Even if the application checks
availability before allowing a user to make a booking, there can be a conflict if the two bookings
are made on two different leaders.

There isn’t a quick ready-made answer, but in the following chapters we will trace a path toward a
good understanding of this problem. We will see some more examples of conflicts in
[Chapter 8](/en/ch8#ch_transactions), and in [Link to Come] we will discuss scalable approaches for detecting and
resolving conflicts in a replicated system.


## Leaderless Replication

The replication approaches we have discussed so far in this chapter—single-leader and
multi-leader replication—are based on the idea that a client sends a write request to one node
(the leader), and the database system takes care of copying that write to the other replicas. A
leader determines the order in which writes should be processed, and followers apply the leader’s
writes in the same order.

Some data storage systems take a different approach, abandoning the concept of a leader and
allowing any replica to directly accept writes from clients. Some of the earliest replicated data
systems were leaderless [^1] [^50], but the idea was mostly forgotten during the era of dominance of relational databases. It once again became
a fashionable architecture for databases after Amazon used it for its in-house *Dynamo* system in
2007 [^45]. Riak, Cassandra, and ScyllaDB are open source datastores with leaderless replication models inspired
by Dynamo, so this kind of database is also known as *Dynamo-style*.

--------

> [!NOTE]
> The original *Dynamo* system was only described in a paper [^45], but never released outside of Amazon. 
> The similarly-named *DynamoDB* is a more recent cloud database from AWS, but it has a completely different architecture: 
> it uses single-leader replication based on the Multi-Paxos consensus algorithm [^5].

--------

In some leaderless implementations, the client directly sends its writes to several replicas, while
in others, a coordinator node does this on behalf of the client. However, unlike a leader database,
that coordinator does not enforce a particular ordering of writes. As we shall see, this difference in design has
profound consequences for the way the database is used.

### Writing to the Database When a Node Is Down

Imagine you have a database with three replicas, and one of the replicas is currently
unavailable—​perhaps it is being rebooted to install a system update. In a single-leader
configuration, if you want to continue processing writes, you may need to perform a failover (see
[“Handling Node Outages”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_failover)).

On the other hand, in a leaderless configuration, failover does not exist.
[Figure 6-12](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_node_outage) shows what happens: the client (user 1234) sends the write to
all three replicas in parallel, and the two available replicas accept the write but the unavailable
replica misses it. Let’s say that it’s sufficient for two out of three replicas to
acknowledge the write: after user 1234 has received two *ok* responses, we consider the write to be
successful. The client simply ignores the fact that one of the replicas missed the write.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0612.png" id="fig_replication_quorum_node_outage" caption="Figure 6-12. A quorum write, quorum read, and read repair after a node outage." class="w-full my-4" >}}


Now imagine that the unavailable node comes back online, and clients start reading from it. Any
writes that happened while the node was down are missing from that node. Thus, if you read from that
node, you may get *stale* (outdated) values as responses.

To solve that problem, when a client reads from the database, it doesn’t just send its request to
one replica: *read requests are also sent to several nodes in parallel*. The client may get
different responses from different nodes; for example, the up-to-date value from one node and a
stale value from another.

In order to tell which responses are up-to-date and which are outdated, every value that is written
needs to be tagged with a version number or timestamp, similarly to what we saw in
[“Last write wins (discarding concurrent writes)”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_lww). When a client receives multiple values in response to a read, it uses the
one with the greatest timestamp (even if that value was only returned by one replica, and several
other replicas returned older values). See [“Detecting Concurrent Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_concurrent) for more details.

#### Catching up on missed writes

The replication system should ensure that eventually all the data is copied to every replica. After
an unavailable node comes back online, how does it catch up on the writes that it missed? Several
mechanisms are used in Dynamo-style datastores:

Read repair
:   When a client makes a read from several nodes in parallel, it can detect any stale responses.
    For example, in [Figure 6-12](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_node_outage), user 2345 gets a version 6 value from
    replica 3 and a version 7 value from replicas 1 and 2. The client sees that replica 3 has a stale
    value and writes the newer value back to that replica. This approach works well for values that are
    frequently read.

Hinted handoff
:   If one replica is unavailable, another replica may store writes on its behalf in the form of
    *hints*. When the replica that was supposed to receive those writes comes back, the replica
    storing the hints sends them to the recovered replica, and then deletes the hints. This *handoff*
    process helps bring replicas up-to-date even for values that are never read, and therefore not
    handled by read repair.

Anti-entropy
:   In addition, there is a background process that periodically looks for differences in
    the data between replicas and copies any missing data from one replica to another. Unlike the
    replication log in leader-based replication, this *anti-entropy process* does not copy writes in
    any particular order, and there may be a significant delay before data is copied.

#### Quorums for reading and writing

In the example of [Figure 6-12](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_node_outage), we considered the write to be successful
even though it was only processed on two out of three replicas. What if only one out of three
replicas accepted the write? How far can we push this?

If we know that every successful write is guaranteed to be present on at least two out of three
replicas, that means at most one replica can be stale. Thus, if we read from at least two replicas,
we can be sure that at least one of the two is up to date. If the third replica is down or slow to
respond, reads can nevertheless continue returning an up-to-date value.

More generally, if there are *n* replicas, every write must be confirmed by *w* nodes to be
considered successful, and we must query at least *r* nodes for each read. (In our example,
*n* = 3, *w* = 2, *r* = 2.) As long as *w* + *r* > *n*, 
we expect to get an up-to-date value when reading, because at least one of the *r* nodes we’re
reading from must be up to date. Reads and writes that obey these *r* and *w* values are called *quorum* reads and writes [^50].
You can think of *r* and *w* as the minimum number of votes required for the read or write to be valid.

In Dynamo-style databases, the parameters *n*, *w*, and *r* are typically configurable. A common
choice is to make *n* an odd number (typically 3 or 5) and to set *w* = *r* =
(*n* + 1) / 2 (rounded up). However, you can vary the numbers as you see fit.
For example, a workload with few writes and many reads may benefit from setting *w* = *n* and
*r* = 1. This makes reads faster, but has the disadvantage that just one failed node causes all
database writes to fail.

--------

> [!NOTE]
> There may be more than *n* nodes in the cluster, but any given value is stored only on *n*
> nodes. This allows the dataset to be sharded, supporting datasets that are larger than you can fit
> on one node. We will return to sharding in [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding).

--------

The quorum condition, *w* + *r* > *n*, allows the system to tolerate unavailable nodes
as follows:

* If *w* < *n*, we can still process writes if a node is unavailable.
* If *r* < *n*, we can still process reads if a node is unavailable.
* With *n* = 3, *w* = 2, *r* = 2 we can tolerate one unavailable
  node, like in [Figure 6-12](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_node_outage).
* With *n* = 5, *w* = 3, *r* = 3 we can tolerate two unavailable nodes.
  This case is illustrated in [Figure 6-13](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_overlap).

Normally, reads and writes are always sent to all *n* replicas in parallel. The parameters *w* and *r* 
determine how many nodes we wait for—i.e., how many of the *n* nodes need to report success
before we consider the read or write to be successful.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0613.png" id="fig_replication_quorum_overlap" caption="Figure 6-13. If *w* + *r* > *n*, at least one of the *r* replicas you read from must have seen the most recent successful write." class="w-full my-4" >}}


If fewer than the required *w* or *r* nodes are available, writes or reads return an error. A node
could be unavailable for many reasons: because the node is down (crashed, powered down), due to an
error executing the operation (can’t write because the disk is full), due to a network interruption
between the client and the node, or for any number of other reasons. We only care whether the node
returned a successful response and don’t need to distinguish between different kinds of fault.

### Limitations of Quorum Consistency

If you have *n* replicas, and you choose *w* and *r* such that *w* + *r* > *n*, you can
generally expect every read to return the most recent value written for a key. This is the case because the
set of nodes to which you’ve written and the set of nodes from which you’ve read must overlap. That
is, among the nodes you read there must be at least one node with the latest value (illustrated in
[Figure 6-13](/en/ch6#fig_replication_quorum_overlap)).

Often, *r* and *w* are chosen to be a majority (more than *n*/2) of nodes, because that ensures
*w* + *r* > *n* while still tolerating up to *n*/2 (rounded down) node failures. But quorums are
not necessarily majorities—it only matters that the sets of nodes used by the read and write
operations overlap in at least one node. Other quorum assignments are possible, which allows some
flexibility in the design of distributed algorithms [^51].

You may also set *w* and *r* to smaller numbers, so that *w* + *r* ≤ *n* (i.e.,
the quorum condition is not satisfied). In this case, reads and writes will still be sent to *n*
nodes, but a smaller number of successful responses is required for the operation to succeed.

With a smaller *w* and *r* you are more likely to read stale values, because it’s more likely that
your read didn’t include the node with the latest value. On the upside, this configuration allows
lower latency and higher availability: if there is a network interruption and many replicas become
unreachable, there’s a higher chance that you can continue processing reads and writes. Only after
the number of reachable replicas falls below *w* or *r* does the database become unavailable for
writing or reading, respectively.

However, even with *w* + *r* > *n*, there are edge cases in which the consistency
properties can be confusing. Some scenarios include:

* If a node carrying a new value fails, and its data is restored from a replica carrying an old
  value, the number of replicas storing the new value may fall below *w*, breaking the quorum
  condition.
* While a rebalancing is in progress, where some data is moved from one node to another (see
  [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding)), nodes may have inconsistent views of which nodes should be holding the *n*
  replicas for a particular value. This can result in the read and write quorums no longer
  overlapping.
* If a read is concurrent with a write operation, the read may or may not see the concurrently
  written value. In particular, it’s possible for one read to see the new value, and a subsequent
  read to see the old value, as we shall see in [“Linearizability and quorums”](/en/ch10#sec_consistency_quorum_linearizable).
* If a write succeeded on some replicas but failed on others (for example because the disks on some
  nodes are full), and overall succeeded on fewer than *w* replicas, it is not rolled back on the
  replicas where it succeeded. This means that if a write was reported as failed, subsequent reads
  may or may not return the value from that write [^52].
* If the database uses timestamps from a real-time clock to determine which write is newer (as
  Cassandra and ScyllaDB do, for example), writes might be silently dropped if another node with a
  faster clock has written to the same key—an issue we previously saw in [“Last write wins (discarding concurrent writes)”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_lww).
  We will discuss this in more detail in [“Relying on Synchronized Clocks”](/en/ch9#sec_distributed_clocks_relying).
* If two writes occur concurrently, one of them might be processed first on one replica, and the
  other might be processed first on another replica. This leads to a conflict, similarly to what we
  saw for multi-leader replication (see [“Dealing with Conflicting Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_write_conflicts)). We will return to this
  topic in [“Detecting Concurrent Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_concurrent).

Thus, although quorums appear to guarantee that a read returns the latest written value, in practice
it is not so simple. Dynamo-style databases are generally optimized for use cases that can tolerate
eventual consistency. The parameters *w* and *r* allow you to adjust the probability of stale values
being read [^53], but it’s wise to not take them as absolute guarantees.

#### Monitoring staleness

From an operational perspective, it’s important to monitor whether your databases are
returning up-to-date results. Even if your application can tolerate stale reads, you need to be
aware of the health of your replication. If it falls behind significantly, it should alert you so
that you can investigate the cause (for example, a problem in the network or an overloaded node).

For leader-based replication, the database typically exposes metrics for the replication lag, which
you can feed into a monitoring system. This is possible because writes are applied to the leader and
to followers in the same order, and each node has a position in the replication log (the number of
writes it has applied locally). By subtracting a follower’s current position from the leader’s
current position, you can measure the amount of replication lag.

However, in systems with leaderless replication, there is no fixed order in which writes are
applied, which makes monitoring more difficult. The number of hints that a replica stores for
handoff can be one measure of system health, but it’s difficult to interpret usefully [^54].
Eventual consistency is a deliberately vague guarantee, but for operability it’s important to be
able to quantify “eventual.”


### Single-Leader vs. Leaderless Replication Performance

A replication system based on a single leader can provide strong consistency guarantees that are
difficult or impossible to achieve in a leaderless system. However, as we have seen in
[“Problems with Replication Lag”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_lag), reads in a leader-based replicated system can also return stale values if
you make them on an asynchronously updated follower.

Reading from the leader ensures up-to-date responses, but it suffers from performance problems:

* Read throughput is limited by the leader’s capacity to handle requests (in contrast with read
  scaling, which distributes reads across asynchronously updated replicas that may return stale
  values).
* If the leader fails, you have to wait for the fault to be detected, and for the failover to
  complete before you can continue handling requests. Even if the failover process is very quick,
  users will notice it because of the temporarily increased response times; if failover takes a long
  time, the system is unavailable for its duration.
* The system is very sensitive to performance problems on the leader: if the leader is slow to
  respond, e.g. due to overload or some resource contention, the increased response times
  immediately affect users as well.

A big advantage of a leaderless architecture is that it is more resilient against such issues.
Because there is no failover, and requests go to multiple replicas in parallel anyway, one replica
becoming slow or unavailable has very little impact on response times: the client simply uses the
responses from the other replicas that are faster to respond. Using the fastest responses is called
*request hedging*, and it can significantly reduce tail latency [^55]).

At its core, the resilience of a leaderless system comes from the fact that it doesn’t distinguish
between the normal case and the failure case. This is especially helpful when handling so-called
*gray failures*, in which a node isn’t completely down, but running in a degraded state where it is
unusually slow to handle requests [^56], or when a node is simply overloaded (for example, if a node has been offline for a while, recovery
via hinted handoff can cause a lot of additional load). A leader-based system has to decide whether
the situation is bad enough to warrant a failover (which can itself cause further disruption),
whereas in a leaderless system that question doesn’t even arise.

That said, leaderless systems can have performance problems as well:

* Even though the system doesn’t need to perform failover, one replica does need to detect when
  another replica is unavailable so that it can store hints about writes that the unavailable
  replica missed. When the unavailable replica comes back, the handoff process needs to send it
  those hints. This puts additional load on the replicas at a time when the system is already under strain [^54].
* The more replicas you have, the bigger the size of your quorums, and the more responses you have
  to wait for before a request can complete. Even if you wait only for the fastest *r* or *w*
  replicas to respond, and even if you make the requests in parallel, a bigger *r* or *w* increases
  the chance that you hit a slow replica, increasing the overall response time (see
  [“Use of Response Time Metrics”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_slo_sla)).
* A large-scale network interruption that disconnects a client from a large number of replicas can
  make it impossible to form a quorum. Some leaderless databases offer a configuration option that
  allows any reachable replica to accept writes, even if it’s not one of the usual replicas for that
  key (Riak and Dynamo call this a *sloppy quorum* [^45];
  Cassandra and ScyllaDB call it *consistency level ANY*). There is no guarantee that subsequent
  reads will see the written value, but depending on the application it may still be better than
  having the write fail.

Multi-leader replication can offer even greater resilience against network interruptions than
leaderless replication, since reads and writes only require communication with one leader, which can
be co-located with the client. However, since a write on one leader is propagated asynchronously to
the others, reads can be arbitrarily out-of-date. Quorum reads and writes provide a compromise: good
fault tolerance while also having a high likelihood of reading up-to-date data.

#### Multi-region operation

We previously discussed cross-region replication as a use case for multi-leader replication (see
[“Multi-Leader Replication”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_multi_leader)). Leaderless replication is also suitable for
multi-region operation, since it is designed to tolerate conflicting concurrent writes, network
interruptions, and latency spikes.

Cassandra and ScyllaDB implement their multi-region support within the normal leaderless model: the
client sends its writes directly to the replicas in all regions, and you can choose from a variety
of consistency levels that determine how many responses are required for a request to be successful.
For example, you can request a quorum across the replicas in all the regions, a separate quorum in
each of the regions, or a quorum only in the client’s local region. A local quorum avoids having to
wait for slow requests to other regions, but it is also more likely to return stale results.

Riak keeps all communication between clients and database nodes local to one region, so *n*
describes the number of replicas within one region. Cross-region replication between
database clusters happens asynchronously in the background, in a style that is similar to
multi-leader replication.


### Detecting Concurrent Writes

Like with multi-leader replication, leaderless databases allow concurrent writes to the same key,
resulting in conflicts that need to be resolved. Such conflicts may occur as the writes happen, but
not always: they could also be detected later during read repair, hinted handoff, or anti-entropy.

The problem is that events may arrive in a different order at different nodes, due to variable
network delays and partial failures. For example, [Figure 6-14](/en/ch6#fig_replication_concurrency) shows two clients,
A and B, simultaneously writing to a key *X* in a three-node datastore:

* Node 1 receives the write from A, but never receives the write from B due to a transient outage.
* Node 2 first receives the write from A, then the write from B.
* Node 3 first receives the write from B, then the write from A.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0614.png" id="fig_replication_concurrency" caption="Figure 6-14. Concurrent writes in a Dynamo-style datastore: there is no well-defined ordering." class="w-full my-4" >}}


If each node simply overwrote the value for a key whenever it received a write request from a
client, the nodes would become permanently inconsistent, as shown by the final *get* request in
[Figure 6-14](/en/ch6#fig_replication_concurrency): node 2 thinks that the final value of *X* is B, whereas the other
nodes think that the value is A.

In order to become eventually consistent, the replicas should converge toward the same value. For
this, we can use any of the conflict resolution mechanisms we previously discussed in
[“Dealing with Conflicting Writes”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_write_conflicts), such as last-write-wins (used by Cassandra and ScyllaDB),
manual resolution, or CRDTs (described in [“CRDTs and Operational Transformation”](/en/ch6#sec_replication_crdts), and used by Riak).

Last-write-wins is easy to implement: each write is tagged with a timestamp, and a value with a
higher timestamp always overwrites a value with a lower timestamp. However, a timestamp doesn’t tell
you whether two values are actually conflicting (i.e., they were written concurrently) or not (they
were written one after another). If you want to resolve conflicts explicitly, the system needs to
take more care to detect concurrent writes.

#### The “happens-before” relation and concurrency

How do we decide whether two operations are concurrent or not? To develop an intuition, let’s look
at some examples:

* In [Figure 6-8](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality), the two writes are not concurrent: A’s insert *happens before*
  B’s increment, because the value incremented by B is the value inserted by A. In other words, B’s
  operation builds upon A’s operation, so B’s operation must have happened later.
  We also say that B is *causally dependent* on A.
* On the other hand, the two writes in [Figure 6-14](/en/ch6#fig_replication_concurrency) are concurrent: when each
  client starts the operation, it does not know that another client is also performing an operation
  on the same key. Thus, there is no causal dependency between the operations.

An operation A *happens before* another operation B if B knows about A, or depends on A, or builds
upon A in some way. Whether one operation happens before another operation is the key to defining
what concurrency means. In fact, we can simply say that two operations are *concurrent* if neither
happens before the other (i.e., neither knows about the other) [^57].

Thus, whenever you have two operations A and B, there are three possibilities: either A happened
before B, or B happened before A, or A and B are concurrent. What we need is an algorithm to tell us
whether two operations are concurrent or not. If one operation happened before another, the later
operation should overwrite the earlier operation, but if the operations are concurrent, we have a
conflict that needs to be resolved.

--------

> ![TIP] Concurrency, Time, and Relativity

It may seem that two operations should be called concurrent if they occur “at the same time”—but
in fact, it is not important whether they literally overlap in time. Because of problems with clocks
in distributed systems, it is actually quite difficult to tell whether two things happened
at exactly the same time—an issue we will discuss in more detail in [Chapter 9](/en/ch9#ch_distributed).

For defining concurrency, exact time doesn’t matter: we simply call two operations concurrent if
they are both unaware of each other, regardless of the physical time at which they occurred. People
sometimes make a connection between this principle and the special theory of relativity in physics
[^57], which introduced the idea that
information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Consequently, two events that occur some
distance apart cannot possibly affect each other if the time between the events is shorter than the
time it takes light to travel the distance between them.

In computer systems, two operations might be concurrent even though the speed of light would in
principle have allowed one operation to affect the other. For example, if the network was slow or
interrupted at the time, two operations can occur some time apart and still be concurrent, because
the network problems prevented one operation from being able to know about the other.

--------

#### Capturing the happens-before relationship

Let’s look at an algorithm that determines whether two operations are concurrent, or whether one
happened before another. To keep things simple, let’s start with a database that has only one
replica. Once we have worked out how to do this on a single replica, we can generalize the approach
to a leaderless database with multiple replicas.

[Figure 6-15](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality_single) shows two clients concurrently adding items to the same
shopping cart. (If that example strikes you as too inane, imagine instead two air traffic
controllers concurrently adding aircraft to the sector they are tracking.) Initially, the cart is
empty. Between them, the clients make five writes to the database:

1. Client 1 adds `milk` to the cart. This is the first write to that key, so the server successfully
   stores it and assigns it version 1. The server also echoes the value back to the client, along
   with the version number.
2. Client 2 adds `eggs` to the cart, not knowing that client 1 concurrently added `milk` (client 2
   thought that its `eggs` were the only item in the cart). The server assigns version 2 to this
   write, and stores `eggs` and `milk` as two separate values (siblings). It then returns *both*
   values to the client, along with the version number of 2.
3. Client 1, oblivious to client 2’s write, wants to add `flour` to the cart, so it thinks the
   current cart contents should be `[milk, flour]`. It sends this value to the server, along with
   the version number 1 that the server gave client 1 previously. The server can tell from the
   version number that the write of `[milk, flour]` supersedes the prior value of `[milk]` but that
   it is concurrent with `[eggs]`. Thus, the server assigns version 3 to `[milk, flour]`, overwrites
   the version 1 value `[milk]`, but keeps the version 2 value `[eggs]` and returns both remaining
   values to the client.
4. Meanwhile, client 2 wants to add `ham` to the cart, unaware that client 1 just added `flour`.
   Client 2 received the two values `[milk]` and `[eggs]` from the server in the last response, so
   the client now merges those values and adds `ham` to form a new value, `[eggs, milk, ham]`. It
   sends that value to the server, along with the previous version number 2. The server detects that
   version 2 overwrites `[eggs]` but is concurrent with `[milk, flour]`, so the two remaining
   values are `[milk, flour]` with version 3, and `[eggs, milk, ham]` with version 4.
5. Finally, client 1 wants to add `bacon`. It previously received `[milk, flour]` and `[eggs]` from
   the server at version 3, so it merges those, adds `bacon`, and sends the final value
   `[milk, flour, eggs, bacon]` to the server, along with the version number 3. This overwrites
   `[milk, flour]` (note that `[eggs]` was already overwritten in the last step) but is concurrent
   with `[eggs, milk, ham]`, so the server keeps those two concurrent values.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0615.png" id="fig_replication_causality_single" caption="Figure 6-15. Capturing causal dependencies between two clients concurrently editing a shopping cart." class="w-full my-4" >}}


The dataflow between the operations in [Figure 6-15](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality_single) is illustrated
graphically in [Figure 6-16](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causal_dependencies). The arrows indicate which operation
*happened before* which other operation, in the sense that the later operation *knew about* or
*depended on* the earlier one. In this example, the clients are never fully up to date with the data
on the server, since there is always another operation going on concurrently. But old versions of
the value do get overwritten eventually, and no writes are lost.

{{< figure link="#fig_replication_causality_single" src="/fig/ddia_0616.png" id="fig_replication_causal_dependencies" caption="Figure 6-16. Graph of causal dependencies in Figure 6-15." class="w-full my-4" >}}


Note that the server can determine whether two operations are concurrent by looking at the version
numbers—it does not need to interpret the value itself (so the value could be any data
structure). The algorithm works as follows:

* The server maintains a version number for every key, increments the version number every time that
  key is written, and stores the new version number along with the value written.
* When a client reads a key, the server returns all siblings, i.e., all values that have not been
  overwritten, as well as the latest version number. A client must read a key before writing.
* When a client writes a key, it must include the version number from the prior read, and it must
  merge together all values that it received in the prior read, e.g. using a CRDT or by asking the
  user. The response from a write request is like a read, returning all siblings, which allows us to
  chain several writes like in the shopping cart example.
* When the server receives a write with a particular version number, it can overwrite all values
  with that version number or below (since it knows that they have been merged into the new value),
  but it must keep all values with a higher version number (because those values are concurrent with
  the incoming write).

When a write includes the version number from a prior read, that tells us which previous state the
write is based on. If you make a write without including a version number, it is concurrent with all
other writes, so it will not overwrite anything—it will just be returned as one of the values
on subsequent reads.

#### Version vectors

The example in [Figure 6-15](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality_single) used only a single replica. How does the
algorithm change when there are multiple replicas, but no leader?

[Figure 6-15](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality_single) uses a single version number to capture dependencies between
operations, but that is not sufficient when there are multiple replicas accepting writes
concurrently. Instead, we need to use a version number *per replica* as well as per key. Each
replica increments its own version number when processing a write, and also keeps track of the
version numbers it has seen from each of the other replicas. This information indicates which values
to overwrite and which values to keep as siblings.

The collection of version numbers from all the replicas is called a *version vector* [^58].
A few variants of this idea are in use, but the most interesting is probably the *dotted version vector* [^59] [^60],
which is used in Riak 2.0 [^61] [^62].
We won’t go into the details, but the way it works is quite similar to what we saw in our cart example.

Like the version numbers in [Figure 6-15](/en/ch6#fig_replication_causality_single), version vectors are sent from the
database replicas to clients when values are read, and need to be sent back to the database when a
value is subsequently written. (Riak encodes the version vector as a string that it calls *causal
context*.) The version vector allows the database to distinguish between overwrites and concurrent
writes.

The version vector also ensures that it is safe to read from one replica and subsequently write back
to another replica. Doing so may result in siblings being created, but no data is lost as long as
siblings are merged correctly.

--------

> [!TIP] VERSION VECTORS AND VECTOR CLOCKS

A *version vector* is sometimes also called a *vector clock*, even though they are not quite the
same. The difference is subtle—please see the references for details [^60] [^63] [^64]. In brief, when
comparing the state of replicas, version vectors are the right data structure to use.

--------

## Summary

In this chapter we looked at the issue of replication. Replication can serve several purposes:

*High availability*
:   Keeping the system running, even when one machine (or several machines, a
    zone, or even an entire region) goes down

*Disconnected operation*
:   Allowing an application to continue working when there is a network
    interruption

*Latency*
:   Placing data geographically close to users, so that users can interact with it faster

*Scalability*
:   Being able to handle a higher volume of reads than a single machine could handle,
    by performing reads on replicas

Despite being a simple goal—keeping a copy of the same data on several machines—replication turns out
to be a remarkably tricky problem. It requires carefully thinking about concurrency and about all
the things that can go wrong, and dealing with the consequences of those faults. At a minimum, we
need to deal with unavailable nodes and network interruptions (and that’s not even considering the
more insidious kinds of fault, such as silent data corruption due to software bugs or hardware errors).

We discussed three main approaches to replication:

*Single-leader replication*
:   Clients send all writes to a single node (the leader), which sends a
    stream of data change events to the other replicas (followers). Reads can be performed on any
    replica, but reads from followers might be stale.

*Multi-leader replication*
:   Clients send each write to one of several leader nodes, any of which
    can accept writes. The leaders send streams of data change events to each other and to any
    follower nodes.

*Leaderless replication*
:   Clients send each write to several nodes, and read from several nodes
    in parallel in order to detect and correct nodes with stale data.

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Single-leader replication is popular because it is
fairly easy to understand and it offers strong consistency. Multi-leader and leaderless replication
can be more robust in the presence of faulty nodes, network interruptions, and latency spikes—at the
cost of requiring conflict resolution and providing weaker consistency guarantees.

Replication can be synchronous or asynchronous, which has a profound effect on the system behavior
when there is a fault. Although asynchronous replication can be fast when the system is running
smoothly, it’s important to figure out what happens when replication lag increases and servers fail.
If a leader fails and you promote an asynchronously updated follower to be the new leader, recently
committed data may be lost.

We looked at some strange effects that can be caused by replication lag, and we discussed a few
consistency models which are helpful for deciding how an application should behave under replication
lag:

*Read-after-write consistency*
:   Users should always see data that they submitted themselves.

*Monotonic reads*
:   After users have seen the data at one point in time, they shouldn’t later see
    the data from some earlier point in time.

*Consistent prefix reads*
:   Users should see the data in a state that makes causal sense:
    for example, seeing a question and its reply in the correct order.

Finally, we discussed how multi-leader and leaderless replication ensure that all replicas
eventually converge to a consistent state: by using a version vector or similar algorithm to detect
which writes are concurrent, and by using a conflict resolution algorithm such as a CRDT to merge
the concurrently written values. Last-write-wins and manual conflict resolution are also possible.

This chapter has assumed that every replica stores a full copy of the whole database, which is
unrealistic for large datasets. In the next chapter we will look at *sharding*, which allows each
machine to store only a subset of the data.




### References


[^1]: B. G. Lindsay, P. G. Selinger, C. Galtieri, J. N. Gray, R. A. Lorie, T. G. Price, F. Putzolu, I. L. Traiger, and B. W. Wade. [Notes on Distributed Databases](https://dominoweb.draco.res.ibm.com/reports/RJ2571.pdf). IBM Research, Research Report RJ2571(33471), July 1979. Archived at [perma.cc/EPZ3-MHDD](https://perma.cc/EPZ3-MHDD)
[^2]: Kenny Gryp. [MySQL Terminology Updates](https://dev.mysql.com/blog-archive/mysql-terminology-updates/). *dev.mysql.com*, July 2020. Archived at [perma.cc/S62G-6RJ2](https://perma.cc/S62G-6RJ2)
[^3]: Oracle Corporation. [Oracle (Active) Data Guard 19c: Real-Time Data Protection and Availability](https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/availability/dg-adg-technical-overview-wp-5347548.pdf). White Paper, *oracle.com*, March 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/P5ST-RPKE](https://perma.cc/P5ST-RPKE)
[^4]: Microsoft. [What is an Always On availability group?](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/availability-groups/windows/overview-of-always-on-availability-groups-sql-server) *learn.microsoft.com*, September 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/ABH6-3MXF](https://perma.cc/ABH6-3MXF)
[^5]: Mostafa Elhemali, Niall Gallagher, Nicholas Gordon, Joseph Idziorek, Richard Krog, Colin Lazier, Erben Mo, Akhilesh Mritunjai, Somu Perianayagam, Tim Rath, Swami Sivasubramanian, James Christopher Sorenson III, Sroaj Sosothikul, Doug Terry, and Akshat Vig. [Amazon DynamoDB: A Scalable, Predictably Performant, and Fully Managed NoSQL Database Service](https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc22/presentation/elhemali). At *USENIX Annual Technical Conference* (ATC), July 2022.
[^6]: Rebecca Taft, Irfan Sharif, Andrei Matei, Nathan VanBenschoten, Jordan Lewis, Tobias Grieger, Kai Niemi, Andy Woods, Anne Birzin, Raphael Poss, Paul Bardea, Amruta Ranade, Ben Darnell, Bram Gruneir, Justin Jaffray, Lucy Zhang, and Peter Mattis. [CockroachDB: The Resilient Geo-Distributed SQL Database](https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3318464.3386134). At *ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data* (SIGMOD), pages 1493–1509, June 2020. [doi:10.1145/3318464.3386134](https://doi.org/10.1145/3318464.3386134)
[^7]: Dongxu Huang, Qi Liu, Qiu Cui, Zhuhe Fang, Xiaoyu Ma, Fei Xu, Li Shen, Liu Tang, Yuxing Zhou, Menglong Huang, Wan Wei, Cong Liu, Jian Zhang, Jianjun Li, Xuelian Wu, Lingyu Song, Ruoxi Sun, Shuaipeng Yu, Lei Zhao, Nicholas Cameron, Liquan Pei, and Xin Tang. [TiDB: a Raft-based HTAP database](https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol13/p3072-huang.pdf). *Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment*, volume 13, issue 12, pages 3072–3084. [doi:10.14778/3415478.3415535](https://doi.org/10.14778/3415478.3415535)
[^8]: Mallory Knodel and Niels ten Oever. [Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-terminology-14.html). *IETF Internet-Draft*, August 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/5ZY9-725E](https://perma.cc/5ZY9-725E)
[^9]: Buck Hodges. [Postmortem: VSTS 4 September 2018](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/devopsservice/?p=17485). *devblogs.microsoft.com*, September 2018. Archived at [perma.cc/ZF5R-DYZS](https://perma.cc/ZF5R-DYZS)
[^10]: Gunnar Morling. [Leader Election With S3 Conditional Writes](https://www.morling.dev/blog/leader-election-with-s3-conditional-writes/). *www.morling.dev*, August 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/7V2N-J78Y](https://perma.cc/7V2N-J78Y)
[^11]: Vignesh Chandramohan, Rohan Desai, and Chris Riccomini. [SlateDB Manifest Design](https://github.com/slatedb/slatedb/blob/main/rfcs/0001-manifest.md). *github.com*, May 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/8EUY-P32Z](https://perma.cc/8EUY-P32Z)
[^12]: Stas Kelvich. [Why does Neon use Paxos instead of Raft, and what’s the difference?](https://neon.tech/blog/paxos) *neon.tech*, August 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/SEZ4-2GXU](https://perma.cc/SEZ4-2GXU)
[^13]: Dimitri Fontaine. [An introduction to the pg\_auto\_failover project](https://tapoueh.org/blog/2021/11/an-introduction-to-the-pg_auto_failover-project/). *tapoueh.org*, November 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/3WH5-6BAF](https://perma.cc/3WH5-6BAF)
[^14]: Jesse Newland. [GitHub availability this week](https://github.blog/news-insights/the-library/github-availability-this-week/). *github.blog*, September 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/3YRF-FTFJ](https://perma.cc/3YRF-FTFJ)
[^15]: Mark Imbriaco. [Downtime last Saturday](https://github.blog/news-insights/the-library/downtime-last-saturday/). *github.blog*, December 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/M7X5-E8SQ](https://perma.cc/M7X5-E8SQ)
[^16]: John Hugg. [‘All In’ with Determinism for Performance and Testing in Distributed Systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJRj3vJL4wE). At *Strange Loop*, September 2015.
[^17]: Hironobu Suzuki. [The Internals of PostgreSQL](https://www.interdb.jp/pg/). *interdb.jp*, 2017.
[^18]: Amit Kapila. [WAL Internals of PostgreSQL](https://www.pgcon.org/2012/schedule/attachments/258_212_Internals%20Of%20PostgreSQL%20Wal.pdf). At *PostgreSQL Conference* (PGCon), May 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/6225-3SUX](https://perma.cc/6225-3SUX)
[^19]: Amit Kapila. [Evolution of Logical Replication](https://amitkapila16.blogspot.com/2023/09/evolution-of-logical-replication.html). *amitkapila16.blogspot.com*, September 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/F9VX-JLER](https://perma.cc/F9VX-JLER)
[^20]: Aru Petchimuthu. [Upgrade your Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL or Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL database, Part 2: Using the pglogical extension](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/part-2-upgrade-your-amazon-rds-for-postgresql-database-using-the-pglogical-extension/). *aws.amazon.com*, August 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/RXT8-FS2T](https://perma.cc/RXT8-FS2T)
[^21]: Yogeshwer Sharma, Philippe Ajoux, Petchean Ang, David Callies, Abhishek Choudhary, Laurent Demailly, Thomas Fersch, Liat Atsmon Guz, Andrzej Kotulski, Sachin Kulkarni, Sanjeev Kumar, Harry Li, Jun Li, Evgeniy Makeev, Kowshik Prakasam, Robbert van Renesse, Sabyasachi Roy, Pratyush Seth, Yee Jiun Song, Benjamin Wester, Kaushik Veeraraghavan, and Peter Xie. [Wormhole: Reliable Pub-Sub to Support Geo-Replicated Internet Services](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi15/nsdi15-paper-sharma.pdf). At *12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation* (NSDI), May 2015.
[^22]: Douglas B. Terry. [Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/replicated-data-consistency-explained-through-baseball/). Microsoft Research, Technical Report MSR-TR-2011-137, October 2011. Archived at [perma.cc/F4KZ-AR38](https://perma.cc/F4KZ-AR38)
[^23]: Douglas B. Terry, Alan J. Demers, Karin Petersen, Mike J. Spreitzer, Marvin M. Theher, and Brent B. Welch. [Session Guarantees for Weakly Consistent Replicated Data](https://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/CS865/Papers/SessionGuaranteesPDIS.pdf). At *3rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems* (PDIS), September 1994. [doi:10.1109/PDIS.1994.331722](https://doi.org/10.1109/PDIS.1994.331722)
[^24]: Werner Vogels. [Eventually Consistent](https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1466448). *ACM Queue*, volume 6, issue 6, pages 14–19, October 2008. [doi:10.1145/1466443.1466448](https://doi.org/10.1145/1466443.1466448)
[^25]: Simon Willison. [Reply to: “My thoughts about Fly.io (so far) and other newish technology I’m getting into”](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31434055). *news.ycombinator.com*, May 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/ZRV4-WWV8](https://perma.cc/ZRV4-WWV8)
[^26]: Nithin Tharakan. [Scaling Bitbucket’s Database](https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/scaling-bitbuckets-database). *atlassian.com*, October 2020. Archived at [perma.cc/JAB7-9FGX](https://perma.cc/JAB7-9FGX)
[^27]: Terry Pratchett. *Reaper Man: A Discworld Novel*. Victor Gollancz, 1991. ISBN: 978-0-575-04979-6
[^28]: Peter Bailis, Alan Fekete, Michael J. Franklin, Ali Ghodsi, Joseph M. Hellerstein, and Ion Stoica. [Coordination Avoidance in Database Systems](https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2237). *Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment*, volume 8, issue 3, pages 185–196, November 2014. [doi:10.14778/2735508.2735509](https://doi.org/10.14778/2735508.2735509)
[^29]: Yaser Raja and Peter Celentano. [PostgreSQL bi-directional replication using pglogical](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/postgresql-bi-directional-replication-using-pglogical/). *aws.amazon.com*, January 2022. Archived at <https://perma.cc/BUQ2-5QWN>
[^30]: Robert Hodges. [If You \*Must\* Deploy Multi-Master Replication, Read This First](https://scale-out-blog.blogspot.com/2012/04/if-you-must-deploy-multi-master.html). *scale-out-blog.blogspot.com*, April 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/C2JN-F6Y8](https://perma.cc/C2JN-F6Y8)
[^31]: Lars Hofhansl. [HBASE-7709: Infinite Loop Possible in Master/Master Replication](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7709). *issues.apache.org*, January 2013. Archived at [perma.cc/24G2-8NLC](https://perma.cc/24G2-8NLC)
[^32]: John Day-Richter. [What’s Different About the New Google Docs: Making Collaboration Fast](https://drive.googleblog.com/2010/09/whats-different-about-new-google-docs.html). *drive.googleblog.com*, September 2010. Archived at [perma.cc/5TL8-TSJ2](https://perma.cc/5TL8-TSJ2)
[^33]: Evan Wallace. [How Figma’s multiplayer technology works](https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology-works/). *figma.com*, October 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/L49H-LY4D](https://perma.cc/L49H-LY4D)
[^34]: Tuomas Artman. [Scaling the Linear Sync Engine](https://linear.app/blog/scaling-the-linear-sync-engine). *linear.app*, June 2023.
[^35]: Amr Saafan. [Why Sync Engines Might Be the Future of Web Applications](https://www.nilebits.com/blog/2024/09/sync-engines-future-web-applications/). *nilebits.com*, September 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/5N73-5M3V](https://perma.cc/5N73-5M3V)
[^36]: Isaac Hagoel. [Are Sync Engines The Future of Web Applications?](https://dev.to/isaachagoel/are-sync-engines-the-future-of-web-applications-1bbi) *dev.to*, July 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/R9HF-BKKL](https://perma.cc/R9HF-BKKL)
[^37]: Sujay Jayakar. [A Map of Sync](https://stack.convex.dev/a-map-of-sync). *stack.convex.dev*, October 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/82R3-H42A](https://perma.cc/82R3-H42A)
[^38]: Alex Feyerke. [Designing Offline-First Web Apps](https://alistapart.com/article/offline-first/). *alistapart.com*, December 2013. Archived at [perma.cc/WH7R-S2DS](https://perma.cc/WH7R-S2DS)
[^39]: Martin Kleppmann, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hardenberg, and Mark McGranaghan. [Local-first software: You own your data, in spite of the cloud](https://www.inkandswitch.com/local-first/). At *ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software* (Onward!), October 2019, pages 154–178. [doi:10.1145/3359591.3359737](https://doi.org/10.1145/3359591.3359737)
[^40]: Martin Kleppmann. [The past, present, and future of local-first](https://martin.kleppmann.com/2024/05/30/local-first-conference.html). At *Local-First Conference*, May 2024.
[^41]: Conrad Hofmeyr. [API Calling is to Sync Engines as jQuery is to React](https://www.powersync.com/blog/api-calling-is-to-sync-engines-as-jquery-is-to-react). *powersync.com*, November 2024. Archived at [perma.cc/2FP9-7WJJ](https://perma.cc/2FP9-7WJJ)
[^42]: Peter van Hardenberg and Martin Kleppmann. [PushPin: Towards Production-Quality Peer-to-Peer Collaboration](https://martin.kleppmann.com/papers/pushpin-papoc20.pdf). At *7th Workshop on Principles and Practice of Consistency for Distributed Data* (PaPoC), April 2020. [doi:10.1145/3380787.3393683](https://doi.org/10.1145/3380787.3393683)
[^43]: Leonard Kawell, Jr., Steven Beckhardt, Timothy Halvorsen, Raymond Ozzie, and Irene Greif. [Replicated document management in a group communication system](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/62266.1024798). At *ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work* (CSCW), September 1988. [doi:10.1145/62266.1024798](https://doi.org/10.1145/62266.1024798)
[^44]: Ricky Pusch. [Explaining how fighting games use delay-based and rollback netcode](https://words.infil.net/w02-netcode.html). *words.infil.net* and *arstechnica.com*, October 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/DE7W-RDJ8](https://perma.cc/DE7W-RDJ8)
[^45]: Giuseppe DeCandia, Deniz Hastorun, Madan Jampani, Gunavardhan Kakulapati, Avinash Lakshman, Alex Pilchin, Swaminathan Sivasubramanian, Peter Vosshall, and Werner Vogels. [Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-Value Store](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/amazon-dynamo-sosp2007.pdf). At *21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles* (SOSP), October 2007. [doi:10.1145/1323293.1294281](https://doi.org/10.1145/1323293.1294281)
[^46]: Marc Shapiro, Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, and Marek Zawirski. [A Comprehensive Study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types](https://inria.hal.science/inria-00555588v1/document). INRIA Research Report no. 7506, January 2011.
[^47]: Chengzheng Sun and Clarence Ellis. [Operational Transformation in Real-Time Group Editors: Issues, Algorithms, and Achievements](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=aef660812c5a9c4d3f06775f9455eeb090a4ff0f). At *ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work* (CSCW), November 1998. [doi:10.1145/289444.289469](https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289469)
[^48]: Joseph Gentle and Martin Kleppmann. [Collaborative Text Editing with Eg-walker: Better, Faster, Smaller](https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14252). At *20th European Conference on Computer Systems* (EuroSys), March 2025. [doi:10.1145/3689031.3696076](https://doi.org/10.1145/3689031.3696076)
[^49]: Dharma Shukla. [Azure Cosmos DB: Pushing the frontier of globally distributed databases](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-cosmos-db-pushing-the-frontier-of-globally-distributed-databases/). *azure.microsoft.com*, September 2018. Archived at [perma.cc/UT3B-HH6R](https://perma.cc/UT3B-HH6R)
[^50]: David K. Gifford. [Weighted Voting for Replicated Data](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15-749/READINGS/required/availability/gifford79.pdf). At *7th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles* (SOSP), December 1979. [doi:10.1145/800215.806583](https://doi.org/10.1145/800215.806583)
[^51]: Heidi Howard, Dahlia Malkhi, and Alexander Spiegelman. [Flexible Paxos: Quorum Intersection Revisited](https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2016.25). At *20th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems* (OPODIS), December 2016. [doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2016.25](https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2016.25)
[^52]: Joseph Blomstedt. [Bringing Consistency to Riak](https://vimeo.com/51973001). At *RICON West*, October 2012.
[^53]: Peter Bailis, Shivaram Venkataraman, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph M. Hellerstein, and Ion Stoica. [Quantifying eventual consistency with PBS](http://www.bailis.org/papers/pbs-vldbj2014.pdf). *The VLDB Journal*, volume 23, pages 279–302, April 2014. [doi:10.1007/s00778-013-0330-1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-013-0330-1)
[^54]: Colin Breck. [Shared-Nothing Architectures for Server Replication and Synchronization](https://blog.colinbreck.com/shared-nothing-architectures-for-server-replication-and-synchronization/). *blog.colinbreck.com*, December 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/48P3-J6CJ](https://perma.cc/48P3-J6CJ)
[^55]: Jeffrey Dean and Luiz André Barroso. [The Tail at Scale](https://cacm.acm.org/research/the-tail-at-scale/). *Communications of the ACM*, volume 56, issue 2, pages 74–80, February 2013. [doi:10.1145/2408776.2408794](https://doi.org/10.1145/2408776.2408794)
[^56]: Peng Huang, Chuanxiong Guo, Lidong Zhou, Jacob R. Lorch, Yingnong Dang, Murali Chintalapati, and Randolph Yao. [Gray Failure: The Achilles’ Heel of Cloud-Scale Systems](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/paper-1.pdf). At *16th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems* (HotOS), May 2017. [doi:10.1145/3102980.3103005](https://doi.org/10.1145/3102980.3103005)
[^57]: Leslie Lamport. [Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/time-clocks-ordering-events-distributed-system/). *Communications of the ACM*, volume 21, issue 7, pages 558–565, July 1978. [doi:10.1145/359545.359563](https://doi.org/10.1145/359545.359563)
[^58]: D. Stott Parker Jr., Gerald J. Popek, Gerard Rudisin, Allen Stoughton, Bruce J. Walker, Evelyn Walton, Johanna M. Chow, David Edwards, Stephen Kiser, and Charles Kline. [Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed Systems](https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Classes/739/Papers/parker83detection.pdf). *IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering*, volume SE-9, issue 3, pages 240–247, May 1983. [doi:10.1109/TSE.1983.236733](https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1983.236733)
[^59]: Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, Paulo Sérgio Almeida, Victor Fonte, and Ricardo Gonçalves. [Dotted Version Vectors: Logical Clocks for Optimistic Replication](https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5808). arXiv:1011.5808, November 2010.
[^60]: Giridhar Manepalli. [Clocks and Causality - Ordering Events in Distributed Systems](https://www.exhypothesi.com/clocks-and-causality/). *exhypothesi.com*, November 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/8REU-KVLQ](https://perma.cc/8REU-KVLQ)
[^61]: Sean Cribbs. [A Brief History of Time in Riak](https://speakerdeck.com/seancribbs/a-brief-history-of-time-in-riak). At *RICON*, October 2014. Archived at [perma.cc/7U9P-6JFX](https://perma.cc/7U9P-6JFX)
[^62]: Russell Brown. [Vector Clocks Revisited Part 2: Dotted Version Vectors](https://riak.com/posts/technical/vector-clocks-revisited-part-2-dotted-version-vectors/). *riak.com*, November 2015. Archived at [perma.cc/96QP-W98R](https://perma.cc/96QP-W98R)
[^63]: Carlos Baquero. [Version Vectors Are Not Vector Clocks](https://haslab.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/version-vectors-are-not-vector-clocks/). *haslab.wordpress.com*, July 2011. Archived at [perma.cc/7PNU-4AMG](https://perma.cc/7PNU-4AMG)
[^64]: Reinhard Schwarz and Friedemann Mattern. [Detecting Causal Relationships in Distributed Computations: In Search of the Holy Grail](https://disco.ethz.ch/courses/hs08/seminar/papers/mattern4.pdf). *Distributed Computing*, volume 7, issue 3, pages 149–174, March 1994. [doi:10.1007/BF02277859](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02277859) 