The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design and evaluation of a conit-based continuous consistency model for replicated services
Abstract
The tradeoffs between consistency, performance, and availability are well understood. Traditionally, however, designers of replicated systems have been forced to choose from either strong consistency guarantees or none at all. This paper explores the semantic space between traditional strong and optimistic consistency models for replicated services. We argue that an important class of applications can tolerate relaxed consistency, but benefit from bounding the maximum rate of inconsistent access in an application-specific manner. Thus, we develop a conit-based continuous consistency model to capture the consistency spectrum using three application-independent metrics, numerical error , order error , and staleness . We then present the design and implementation of TACT, a middleware layer that enforces arbitrary consistency bounds among replicas using these metrics. We argue that the TACT consistency model can simultaneously achieve the often conflicting goals of generality and practicality by describing how a broad range of applications can express their consistency semantics using TACT and by demonstrating that application-independent algorithms can efficiently enforce target consistency levels. Finally, we show that three replicated applications running across the Internet demonstrate significant semantic and performance benefits from using our framework.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system
Lamport, L. (1978) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359545.359563 · Cited by 8,488
A relational model of data for large shared data banks
Codd, E. F. (1970) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/362384.362685 · Cited by 5,547
Cited by
A Survey on Distributed Machine Learning
Verbraeken, J., Wolting, M., Katzy, J., Kloppenburg, J., Verbelen, T., & Rellermeyer, J. S. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3377454 · Cited by 872
A low-bandwidth network file system
Muthitacharoen, A., Chen, B., & Mazières, D. (2001) · Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles · doi:10.1145/502034.502052 · Cited by 784
More Effective Distributed ML via a Stale Synchronous Parallel Parameter Server
Ho, Q., Cipar, J., Cui, H., Kim, J. K., Lee, S., Gibbons, P. B., Gibson, G. A., Ganger, G. R., & Xing, E. P. (2013) · PubMed · doi:10.1184/r1/6475898 · Cited by 506
Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems
Sovran, Y., Power, R., Aguilera, M. K., & Li, J. (2011) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/2043556.2043592 · Cited by 390
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, H., & Vahdat, A.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computer Systems
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-282
- ISSN
- 0734-2071 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7333
- OpenAlex
- W2115806861
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Design and evaluation of a conit-based continuous consistency model for replicated services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/566340.566342
- The paper
- Yu, H., & Vahdat, A. (2002). Design and evaluation of a conit-based continuous consistency model for replicated services. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/566340.566342
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.