greg/machi
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 11 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

WIP: remove lots of orphaned text, continue attacking TODO items

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Scott Lystig Fritchie 2015-04-22 22:52:55 +09:00
parent f7fa2704ee
commit fa89b03d21
1 changed files with 6 additions and 48 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

54
doc/src.high-level/high-level-chain-mgr.tex
View file

@ -1099,24 +1099,6 @@ epoch $E+1$.
See Section~\ref{sub:humming-rules-and-invariants} for detail about See Section~\ref{sub:humming-rules-and-invariants} for detail about
these rules and invariants. these rules and invariants.
TODO:
1. We write a new projection based on flowchart A* and B* and C1* states and
state transtions.
TODO: orphaned text?
(writing) Some members may be unavailable, but that is OK. We can ignore any
timeout/unavailable return status.
The writing phase may complete successfully regardless of availability
of the participants. It may sound counter-intuitive to declare
success in the face of 100\% failure, and it is, but humming consensus
can continue to make progress even if some/all of your writes fail.
If your writes fail, they're likely caused by network partitions or
because the writing server is too slow. Later on, humming consensus will
to read as many public projection stores and make a decision based on
what it reads.
\subsection{Additional discussion of flapping state} \subsection{Additional discussion of flapping state}
\label{sub:flapping-state} \label{sub:flapping-state}
All $P_{new}$ projections All $P_{new}$ projections
@ -1264,6 +1246,11 @@ where ``flapping'' will continue on every humming consensus iteration
until all asymmetric partition disappears. Such proof is an area of until all asymmetric partition disappears. Such proof is an area of
future work. future work.
\subsection{ranking}
\label{sub:projection-ranking}
TODO
\section{``Split brain'' management in CP Mode} \section{``Split brain'' management in CP Mode}
\label{sec:split-brain-management} \label{sec:split-brain-management}
@ -1921,36 +1908,7 @@ immensely: Justin Sheehy, Kota Uenishi, Shunichi Shinohara, Andrew
Stone, Jon Meredith, Chris Meiklejohn, Mark Allen, and Zeeshan Stone, Jon Meredith, Chris Meiklejohn, Mark Allen, and Zeeshan
Lakhani. Lakhani.
\section{TODO: orphaned text} \section{TODO: orphaned text \& missing stuff}
\subsection{Aside: origin of the analogy to composing music (TODO keep?)}
The ``humming'' part of humming consensus comes from the action taken
when the environment changes. If we imagine an egalitarian group of
people, all in the same room humming some pitch together, then we take
action to change our humming pitch if:
\begin{itemize}
\item Some member departs the room (we hear that the volume drops) or
if someone else in the room starts humming a
new pitch with a new epoch number.\footnote{It's very difficult for
the human ear to hear the epoch number part of a hummed pitch, but
for the sake of the analogy, let's assume that it can.}
\item If a member enters the room (we hear that the volume rises) and
perhaps hums a different pitch.
\end{itemize}
If someone were to transcribe onto a musical score the pitches that
are hummed in the room over a period of time, we might have something
that is roughly like music. If this musical score uses chord progressions
and rhythms that obey the rules of a musical genre, e.g., Gregorian
chant, then the final musical score is a valid Gregorian chant.
By analogy, if the rules of the musical score are obeyed, then the
Chain Replication invariants that are managed by humming consensus are
obeyed. Such safe management of Chain Replication metadata is our end goal.
\subsection{ranking}
\label{sub:projection-ranking}
\subsection{rules \& invariants} \subsection{rules \& invariants}
\label{sub:humming-rules-and-invariants} \label{sub:humming-rules-and-invariants}