From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Paxos vs Raft Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:39:25 +0200 Message-ID: <5234049D.1080800@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig94E2F5EAA00C0C6FBB029729" Return-path: Received: from smtp.dmail.dachary.org ([91.121.254.229]:34515 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751408Ab3INGj2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Sep 2013 02:39:28 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: lamport@microsoft.com Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig94E2F5EAA00C0C6FBB029729 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Ceph ( http://ceph.com/ ) relies on a custom implementation of Paxos to p= rovide exabyte scale distributed storage. Like most people recently expos= ed to Paxos, I struggle to understand it ... but will keep studying until= I get it :-) When a friend mentionned Raft ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wi= ki/Raft_%28computer_science%29 ), it looked like an easy way out. But it'= s very recent and I would very much appreciate your opinion. Do you think= it is a viable alternative to Paxos ?=20 Cheers --=20 Lo=EFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do noth= ing. --------------enig94E2F5EAA00C0C6FBB029729 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlI0BJ0ACgkQ8dLMyEl6F2045gCfXdo1ETRqHZDpqGuTgdmId4vp MTEAnRHKJTWJQrjhE81GAw0+kcQ6GRzo =Oc1+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig94E2F5EAA00C0C6FBB029729--