... | ... | @@ -3,53 +3,118 @@ |
|
|
|
|
|
**Part B Due: Friday Feb 19, 9:00pm**
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Modified from the [MIT 6.824 Labs](http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.824/2014/labs/lab-3.html)*
|
|
|
*Modified from the [MIT 6.824 Labs][mit-lab]*
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
Your Lab 2 depends on a single master view server to pick the primary. If the view server is not available (crashes or has network problems), then your key/value service won't work, even if both primary and backup are available. It also has the less critical defect that it copes with a server (primary or backup) that's briefly unavailable (e.g. due to a lost packet) by either blocking or declaring it dead; the latter is very expensive because it requires a complete key/value database transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this lab you'll fix the above problems by using Paxos to manage the replication of a key/value store. You won't have anything corresponding to a master view server. Instead, a set of replicas will process all client requests in the same order, using Paxos to agree on the order. Paxos will get the agreement right even if some of the replicas are unavailable, or have unreliable network connections, or even if subsets of the replicas are isolated in their own network partitions. As long as Paxos can assemble a majority of replicas, it can process client operations. Replicas that were not in the majority can catch up later by asking Paxos for operations that they missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your system will consist of the following players: clients, kvpaxos servers, and Paxos peers. Clients send `Put()`, `PutHash()`, and `Get()` RPCs to key/value servers (called kvpaxos servers). A client can send an RPC to any of the kvpaxos servers, and should retry by sending to a different server if there's a failure. Each kvpaxos server contains a replica of the key/value database; handlers for client `Get()` and `Put()` RPCs; and a Paxos peer. Paxos takes the form of a library that is included in each kvpaxos server. A kvpaxos server talks to its local Paxos peer (via method calls). The different Paxos peers talk to each other via RPC to achieve agreement on each operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Paxos library's interface supports an indefinite sequence of agreement "instances". The instances are numbered with sequence numbers. Each instance is either "decided" or not yet decided. A decided instance has a value. If an instance is decided, then all the Paxos peers that are aware that it is decided will agree on the same value for that instance. The Paxos library interface allows kvpaxos to suggest a value for an instance, and to find out whether an instance has been decided and (if so) what that instance's value is.
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos servers will use Paxos to agree on the order in which client `Put()`s and `Get()`s execute. Each time a kvpaxos server receives a `Put()` or `Get()` RPC, it will use Paxos to cause some Paxos instance's value to be a description of that `Put()` or `Get()`. That instance's sequence number determines when the `Put()` or `Get()` executes relative to other `Put()`s and `Get()`s. In order to find the value to be returned by a `Get()`, kvpaxos should first apply all `Put()`s that are ordered before the `Get()` to its key/value database.
|
|
|
Your Lab 2 depends on a single master view server to pick the primary. If the
|
|
|
view server is not available (crashes or has network problems), then your
|
|
|
key/value service won't work, even if both primary and backup are available. It
|
|
|
also has the less critical defect that it copes with a server (primary or
|
|
|
backup) that's briefly unavailable (e.g. due to a lost packet) by either
|
|
|
blocking or declaring it dead; the latter is very expensive because it requires
|
|
|
a complete key/value database transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this lab you'll fix the above problems by using Paxos to manage the
|
|
|
replication of a key/value store. You won't have anything corresponding to a
|
|
|
master view server. Instead, a set of replicas will process all client requests
|
|
|
in the same order, using Paxos to agree on the order. Paxos will get the
|
|
|
agreement right even if some of the replicas are unavailable, or have unreliable
|
|
|
network connections, or even if subsets of the replicas are isolated in their
|
|
|
own network partitions. As long as Paxos can assemble a majority of replicas, it
|
|
|
can process client operations. Replicas that were not in the majority can catch
|
|
|
up later by asking Paxos for operations that they missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your system will consist of the following players: clients, kvpaxos servers, and
|
|
|
Paxos peers. Clients send `Put()`, `Append()`, and `Get()` RPCs to key/value
|
|
|
servers (called kvpaxos servers). A client can send an RPC to any of the kvpaxos
|
|
|
servers, and should retry by sending to a different server if there's a failure.
|
|
|
Each kvpaxos server contains a replica of the key/value database; handlers for
|
|
|
client `Get()` and `Put()`/`Append()` RPCs; and a Paxos peer. Paxos takes the
|
|
|
form of a library that is included in each kvpaxos server. A kvpaxos server
|
|
|
talks to its local Paxos peer (via method calls). The different Paxos peers talk
|
|
|
to each other via RPC to achieve agreement on each operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Paxos library's interface supports an indefinite sequence of agreement
|
|
|
"instances". The instances are numbered with sequence numbers. Each instance is
|
|
|
either "decided" or not yet decided. A decided instance has a value. If an
|
|
|
instance is decided, then all the Paxos peers that are aware that it is decided
|
|
|
will agree on the same value for that instance. The Paxos library interface
|
|
|
allows kvpaxos to suggest a value for an instance, and to find out whether an
|
|
|
instance has been decided and (if so) what that instance's value is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos servers will use Paxos to agree on the order in which client
|
|
|
`Put()`s, `Append()`s, and `Get()`s execute. Each time a kvpaxos server receives
|
|
|
a `Put()`/`Append()`/`Get()` RPC, it will use Paxos to cause some Paxos
|
|
|
instance's value to be a description of that operation. That instance's sequence
|
|
|
number determines when the operation executes relative to other operations. In
|
|
|
order to find the value to be returned by a `Get()`, kvpaxos should first apply
|
|
|
all `Put()`s and `Append()`s that are ordered before the `Get()` to its
|
|
|
key/value database.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should think of kvpaxos as using Paxos to implement a "log" of
|
|
|
`Put`/`Append`/`Get` operations. That is, each Paxos instance is a log element,
|
|
|
and the order of operations in the log is the order in which all kvpaxos servers
|
|
|
will apply the operations to their key/value databases. Paxos will ensure that
|
|
|
the kvpaxos servers agree on this order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only RPC may be used for interaction between clients and servers, between
|
|
|
different servers, and between different clients. For example, different
|
|
|
instances of your server are not allowed to share Go variables or files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Paxos-based key/value storage system will have some limitations that would
|
|
|
need to be fixed in order for it to be a serious system. It won't cope with
|
|
|
crashes, since it stores neither the key/value database nor the Paxos state on
|
|
|
disk. It requires the set of servers to be fixed, so one cannot replace old
|
|
|
servers. Finally, it is slow: many Paxos messages are exchanged for each client
|
|
|
operation. All of these problems can be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should consult the Paxos lecture notes and the Paxos assigned reading. For a
|
|
|
wider perspective, have a look at Chubby, Paxos Made Live, Spanner, Zookeeper,
|
|
|
Harp, Viewstamped Replication, and Bolosky et al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should think of kvpaxos as using Paxos to implement a "log" of Put/Get operations. That is, each Paxos instance is a log element, and the order of operations in the log is the order in which all kvpaxos servers will apply the operations to their key/value databases. Paxos will ensure that the kvpaxos servers agree on this order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only RPC may be used for interaction between clients and servers, between different servers, and between different clients. For example, different instances of your server are not allowed to share Go variables or files.
|
|
|
## Collaboration Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Paxos-based key/value storage system will have some limitations that would need to be fixed in order for it to be a serious system. It won't cope with crashes, since it stores neither the key/value database nor the Paxos state on disk. It requires the set of servers to be fixed, so one cannot replace old servers. Finally, it is slow: many Paxos messages are exchanged for each `Put()` and `Get()`. All of these problems can be fixed.
|
|
|
You must write all the code you hand in for 452, except for code that we give
|
|
|
you as part of the assignment. You are not allowed to look at anyone else's
|
|
|
solution, and you are not allowed to look at code from previous years. You may
|
|
|
discuss the assignments with other students, but you may not look at or copy
|
|
|
each others' code. Please do not publish your code or make it available to
|
|
|
future 452 students -- for example, please do not make your code visible on
|
|
|
github.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should consult the Paxos lecture notes and the Paxos assigned reading. For a wider perspective, have a look at Chubby, Paxos Made Live, Spanner, Zookeeper, Harp, Viewstamped Replication, and Bolosky et al.
|
|
|
Undergrads taking 452 may do the labs with a partner. Masters students should
|
|
|
complete the labs individually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Collaboration Policy
|
|
|
You must write all the code you hand in for 452, except for code that we give you as part of the assignment. You are not allowed to look at anyone else's solution, and you are not allowed to look at code from previous years. You may discuss the assignments with other students, but you may not look at or copy each others' code. Please do not publish your code or make it available to future 452 students -- for example, please do not make your code visible on github.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undergrads taking 452 may do the labs with a partner. Masters students should complete the labs individually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Software
|
|
|
You should already have to skeleton code for this lab in the `paxos` directory:
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
$ cd src/paxos
|
|
|
Do a `git pull` to get the latest lab software. You should already have to
|
|
|
skeleton code for this lab in the `paxos` directory:
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
$ cd $GOPATH/src/paxos
|
|
|
$ go test
|
|
|
Single proposer: --- FAIL: TestBasic (5.02 seconds)
|
|
|
test_test.go:48: too few decided; seq=0 ndecided=0 wanted=3
|
|
|
Forgetting: --- FAIL: TestForget (5.03 seconds)
|
|
|
Forgetting: --- FAIL: TestForget (5.03 seconds)
|
|
|
test_test.go:48: too few decided; seq=0 ndecided=0 wanted=6
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
Ignore the huge number of "has wrong number of ins" and "type Paxos has no exported methods" errors.
|
|
|
Ignore the huge number of "has wrong number of ins" and "type Paxos has no
|
|
|
exported methods" errors; you can use the `bin/run-test` script to strip some of
|
|
|
these from the output.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Part A: Paxos
|
|
|
|
|
|
First you'll implement a Paxos library. paxos.go contains descriptions of the methods you must implement. When you're done, you should pass all the tests in the paxos directory (after ignoring Go's many complaints):
|
|
|
First you'll implement a Paxos library. paxos.go contains descriptions of the
|
|
|
methods you must implement. When you're done, you should pass all the tests in
|
|
|
the paxos directory (after ignoring Go's many complaints):
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
$ cd ~/6.824/src/paxos
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
$ cd $GOPATH/src/paxos
|
|
|
$ go test
|
|
|
Test: Single proposer ...
|
|
|
... Passed
|
... | ... | @@ -89,25 +154,57 @@ Test: Many requests, changing partitions ... |
|
|
... Passed
|
|
|
PASS
|
|
|
ok paxos 59.523s
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your implementation must support this interface:
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
```go
|
|
|
px = paxos.Make(peers []string, me int)
|
|
|
px.Start(seq int, v interface{}) // start agreement on new instance
|
|
|
px.Status(seq int) (decided bool, v interface{}) // get info about an instance
|
|
|
px.Status(seq int) (fate Fate, v interface{}) // get info about an instance
|
|
|
px.Done(seq int) // ok to forget all instances <= seq
|
|
|
px.Max() int // highest instance seq known, or -1
|
|
|
px.Min() int // instances before this have been forgotten
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
An application `calls Make(peers,me)` to create a Paxos peer. The peers argument contains the ports of all the peers (including this one), and the me argument is the index of this peer in the peers array. `Start(seq,v)` asks Paxos to start agreement on instance seq, with proposed value `v`; `Start()` should return immediately, without waiting for agreement to complete. The application calls `Status(seq)` to find out whether the Paxos peer thinks the instance has reached agreement, and if so what the agreed value is. `Status()` should consult the local Paxos peer's state and return immediately; it should not communicate with other peers. The application may call `Status()` for old instances (but see the discussion of `Done()` below).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your implementation should be able to make progress on agreement for multiple instances at the same time. That is, if application peers call `Start()` with different sequence numbers at about the same time, your implementation should run the Paxos protocol concurrently for all of them. You should not wait for agreement to complete for instance `i` before starting the protocol for instance `i+1`. Each instance should have its own separate execution of the Paxos protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A long-running Paxos-based server must forget about instances that are no longer needed, and free the memory storing information about those instances. An instance is needed if the application still wants to be able to call `Status()` for that instance, or if another Paxos peer may not yet have reached agreement on that instance. Your Paxos should implement freeing of instances in the following way. When a particular peer application will no longer need to call `Status()` for any instance <= `x`, it should call `Done(x)`. That Paxos peer can't yet discard the instances, since some other Paxos peer might not yet have agreed to the instance. So each Paxos peer should tell each other peer the highest `Done` argument supplied by its local application. Each Paxos peer will then have a `Done` value from each other peer. It should find the minimum, and discard all instances with sequence numbers <= that minimum. The `Min()` method returns this minimum sequence number plus one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's OK for your Paxos to piggyback the `Done` value in the agreement protocol packets; that is, it's OK for peer `P1` to only learn `P2`'s latest `Done` value the next time that `P2` sends an agreement message to `P1`. If `Start()` is called with a sequence number less than `Min()`, the `Start()` call should be ignored. If `Status()` is called with a sequence number less than `Min()`, `Status()` should return `false` (indicating no agreement).
|
|
|
An application `calls Make(peers,me)` to create a Paxos peer. The peers argument
|
|
|
contains the ports of all the peers (including this one), and the me argument is
|
|
|
the index of this peer in the peers array. `Start(seq,v)` asks Paxos to start
|
|
|
agreement on instance seq, with proposed value `v`; `Start()` should return
|
|
|
immediately, without waiting for agreement to complete. The application calls
|
|
|
`Status(seq)` to find out whether the Paxos peer thinks the instance has reached
|
|
|
agreement, and if so what the agreed value is. `Status()` should consult the
|
|
|
local Paxos peer's state and return immediately; it should not communicate with
|
|
|
other peers. The application may call `Status()` for old instances (but see the
|
|
|
discussion of `Done()` below).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your implementation should be able to make progress on agreement for multiple
|
|
|
instances at the same time. That is, if application peers call `Start()` with
|
|
|
different sequence numbers at about the same time, your implementation should
|
|
|
run the Paxos protocol concurrently for all of them. You should not wait for
|
|
|
agreement to complete for instance `i` before starting the protocol for instance
|
|
|
`i+1`. Each instance should have its own separate execution of the Paxos
|
|
|
protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A long-running Paxos-based server must forget about instances that are no longer
|
|
|
needed, and free the memory storing information about those instances. An
|
|
|
instance is needed if the application still wants to be able to call `Status()`
|
|
|
for that instance, or if another Paxos peer may not yet have reached agreement
|
|
|
on that instance. Your Paxos should implement freeing of instances in the
|
|
|
following way. When a particular peer application will no longer need to call
|
|
|
`Status()` for any instance <= `x`, it should call `Done(x)`. That Paxos peer
|
|
|
can't yet discard the instances, since some other Paxos peer might not yet have
|
|
|
agreed to the instance. So each Paxos peer should tell each other peer the
|
|
|
highest `Done` argument supplied by its local application. Each Paxos peer will
|
|
|
then have a `Done` value from each other peer. It should find the minimum, and
|
|
|
discard all instances with sequence numbers <= that minimum. The `Min()` method
|
|
|
returns this minimum sequence number plus one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's OK for your Paxos to piggyback the `Done` value in the agreement protocol
|
|
|
packets; that is, it's OK for peer `P1` to only learn `P2`'s latest `Done` value
|
|
|
the next time that `P2` sends an agreement message to `P1`. If `Start()` is
|
|
|
called with a sequence number less than `Min()`, the `Start()` call should be
|
|
|
ignored. If `Status()` is called with a sequence number less than `Min()`,
|
|
|
`Status()` should return Forgotten (indicating no agreement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the Paxos pseudo-code (for a single instance) from the lecture:
|
|
|
```
|
... | ... | @@ -141,70 +238,158 @@ acceptor's accept(n, v) handler: |
|
|
else
|
|
|
reply accept_reject
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a reasonable plan of attack:
|
|
|
1. Add elements to the `Paxos` struct in `paxos.go` to hold the state you'll need, according to the lecture pseudo-code. You'll need to define a struct to hold information about each agreement instance.
|
|
|
2. Define RPC argument/reply type(s) for Paxos protocol messages, based on the lecture pseudo-code. The RPCs must include the sequence number for the agreement instance to which they refer. Remember the field names in the RPC structures must start with capital letters.
|
|
|
3. Write a proposer function that drives the Paxos protocol for an instance, and RPC handlers that implement acceptors. Start a proposer function in its own thread for each instance, as needed (e.g. in `Start()`).
|
|
|
1. Add elements to the `Paxos` struct in `paxos.go` to hold the state you'll
|
|
|
need, according to the lecture pseudo-code. You'll need to define a struct to
|
|
|
hold information about each agreement instance.
|
|
|
2. Define RPC argument/reply type(s) for Paxos protocol messages, based on the
|
|
|
lecture pseudo-code. The RPCs must include the sequence number for the
|
|
|
agreement instance to which they refer. Remember the field names in the RPC
|
|
|
structures must start with capital letters.
|
|
|
3. Write a proposer function that drives the Paxos protocol for an instance, and
|
|
|
RPC handlers that implement acceptors. Start a proposer function in its own
|
|
|
thread for each instance, as needed (e.g. in `Start()`).
|
|
|
4. At this point you should be able to pass the first few tests.
|
|
|
5. Now implement forgetting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** more than one Paxos instance may be executing at a given time, and they may be `Start()`ed and/or decided out of order (e.g. seq 10 may be decided before seq 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** in order to pass tests assuming unreliable network, your paxos should call the local acceptor through a function call rather than RPC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** remember that multiple application peers may call `Start()` on the same instance, perhaps with different proposed values. An application may even call `Start()` for an instance that has already been decided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** think about how your paxos will forget (discard) information about old instances before you start writing code. Each Paxos peer will need to store instance information in some data structure that allows individual instance records to be deleted (so that the Go garbage collector can free / re-use the memory).
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** you do not need to write code to handle the situation where a Paxos peer needs to re-start after a crash. If one of your Paxos peers crashes, it will never be re-started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** have each Paxos peer start a thread per un-decided instance whose job is to eventually drive the instance to agreement, by acting as a proposer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a single Paxos peer may be acting simultaneously as acceptor and proposer for the same instance. Keep these two activities as separate as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a proposer needs a way to choose a higher proposal number than any seen so far. This is a reasonable exception to the rule that proposer and acceptor should be separate. It may also be useful for the `propose` RPC handler to return the highest known proposal number if it rejects an RPC, to help the caller pick a higher one next time. The `px.me` value will be different in each Paxos peer, so you can use `px.me` to help ensure that proposal numbers are unique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** paxos does not guarantee liveness. In other words, proposers may keep proposing higher and higher proposal numbers without being able to finish the instance. Think carefully about how to pick proposal ids on retry to decrease the likelihood of this happening and increases the chances of one of the proposers winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** figure out the minimum number of messages Paxos should use when reaching agreement in non-failure cases and make your implementation use that minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** the tester calls `Kill()` when it wants your Paxos to shut down; `Kill()` sets `px.dead`. You should check `px.dead` in any loops you have that might run for a while, and break out of the loop if `px.dead` is true. It's particularly important to do this any in any long-running threads you create.
|
|
|
5. Now implement forgetting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** more than one Paxos instance may be executing at a given time, and
|
|
|
they may be `Start()`ed and/or decided out of order (e.g. seq 10 may be decided
|
|
|
before seq 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** in order to pass tests assuming unreliable network, your paxos should
|
|
|
call the local acceptor through a function call rather than RPC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** remember that multiple application peers may call `Start()` on the
|
|
|
same instance, perhaps with different proposed values. An application may even
|
|
|
call `Start()` for an instance that has already been decided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** think about how your paxos will forget (discard) information about old
|
|
|
instances before you start writing code. Each Paxos peer will need to store
|
|
|
instance information in some data structure that allows individual instance
|
|
|
records to be deleted (so that the Go garbage collector can free / re-use the
|
|
|
memory).
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** you do not need to write code to handle the situation where a Paxos
|
|
|
peer needs to re-start after a crash. If one of your Paxos peers crashes, it
|
|
|
will never be re-started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** have each Paxos peer start a thread per un-decided instance whose job
|
|
|
is to eventually drive the instance to agreement, by acting as a proposer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a single Paxos peer may be acting simultaneously as acceptor and
|
|
|
proposer for the same instance. Keep these two activities as separate as
|
|
|
possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a proposer needs a way to choose a higher proposal number than any
|
|
|
seen so far. This is a reasonable exception to the rule that proposer and
|
|
|
acceptor should be separate. It may also be useful for the `propose` RPC handler
|
|
|
to return the highest known proposal number if it rejects an RPC, to help the
|
|
|
caller pick a higher one next time. The `px.me` value will be different in each
|
|
|
Paxos peer, so you can use `px.me` to help ensure that proposal numbers are
|
|
|
unique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** paxos does not guarantee liveness. In other words, proposers may keep
|
|
|
proposing higher and higher proposal numbers without being able to finish the
|
|
|
instance. Think carefully about how to pick proposal ids on retry to decrease
|
|
|
the likelihood of this happening and increases the chances of one of the
|
|
|
proposers winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** figure out the minimum number of messages Paxos should use when
|
|
|
reaching agreement in non-failure cases and make your implementation use that
|
|
|
minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** the tester calls `Kill()` when it wants your Paxos to shut down;
|
|
|
`Kill()` sets `px.dead`. You should call `px.isdead()` in any loops you have
|
|
|
that might run for a while, and break out of the loop if `px.isdead()` is true.
|
|
|
It's particularly important to do this any in any long-running threads you
|
|
|
create.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** part A should take around 300 lines of code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Part B: Paxos-based Key/Value Server
|
|
|
Now you'll build kvpaxos, a fault-tolerant key/value storage system. You'll modify `kvpaxos/client.go`, `kvpaxos/common.go`, and `kvpaxos/server.go`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos replicas should stay identical; the only exception is that some replicas may lag others if they are not reachable. If a replica isn't reachable for a while, but then starts being reachable, it should eventually catch up (learn about operations that it missed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos client code should try different replicas it knows about until one responds. A kvpaxos replica that is part of a majority of replicas that can all reach each other should be able to serve client requests.
|
|
|
## Part B: Paxos-based Key/Value Server
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your storage system must provide sequential consistency to applications that use its client interface. That is, completed application calls to the `Clerk.Get()`, `Clerk.Put()`, and `Clerk.PutHash()` methods in `kvpaxos/client.go` must appear to have affected all replicas in the same order and have at-most-once semantics. A `Clerk.Get()` should see the value written by the most recent `Clerk.Put()` (in that order) to the same key. One consequence of this is that you must ensure that each application call to `Clerk.Put()` must appear in that order just once (i.e., write the key/value database just once), even though internally your `client.go` may have to send `Put()` and `PutHash()` RPCs multiple times until it finds a kvpaxos server replica that replies.
|
|
|
Now you'll build kvpaxos, a fault-tolerant key/value storage system. You'll
|
|
|
modify `kvpaxos/client.go`, `kvpaxos/common.go`, and `kvpaxos/server.go`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos replicas should stay identical; the only exception is that some
|
|
|
replicas may lag others if they are not reachable. If a replica isn't reachable
|
|
|
for a while, but then starts being reachable, it should eventually catch up
|
|
|
(learn about operations that it missed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your kvpaxos client code should try different replicas it knows about until one
|
|
|
responds. A kvpaxos replica that is part of a majority of replicas that can all
|
|
|
reach each other should be able to serve client requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your storage system must provide sequential consistency to applications that use
|
|
|
its client interface. That is, completed application calls to the `Clerk.Get()`,
|
|
|
`Clerk.Put()`, and `Clerk.Append()` methods in `kvpaxos/client.go` must appear
|
|
|
to have affected all replicas in the same order and have at-most-once semantics.
|
|
|
A `Clerk.Get()` should see the value written by the most recent `Clerk.Put()` or
|
|
|
`Clerk.Append()` (in that order) to the same key. One consequence of this is
|
|
|
that you must ensure that each application call to `Clerk.Put()` or
|
|
|
`Clerk.Append()` must appear in that order just once (i.e., write the key/value
|
|
|
database just once), even though internally your `client.go` may have to send
|
|
|
`Put()` and `Append()` RPCs multiple times until it finds a kvpaxos server
|
|
|
replica that replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a reasonable plan:
|
|
|
1. Fill in the `Op` struct in `server.go` with the "value" information that kvpaxos will use Paxos to agree on, for each client request. `Op` field names must start with capital letters. You should use `Op` structs as the agreed-on values -- for example, you should pass `Op` structs to Paxos `Start()`. Go's RPC can marshall/unmarshall `Op` structs; the call to `gob.Register()` in `StartServer()` teaches it how.
|
|
|
2. Implement the `Put()` handler in server.go. It should enter a `Put` Op in the Paxos log (i.e., use Paxos to allocate a Paxos instance, whose value includes the key and value (so that other kvpaxoses know about the `Put()`)).
|
|
|
3. Implement a `Get()` handler. It should enter a `Get` Op in the Paxos log, and then "interpret" the the log before that point to make sure its key/value database reflects all recent `Put()`s.
|
|
|
4. Add code to cope with duplicate client `Put()`s -- i.e. situations in which `Put()` in `client.go` sends the same request to multiple kvpaxos replicas. The `Put()/PutHash()` should execute just once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your server should try to assign the next available Paxos instance (sequence number) to each incoming client RPC. However, some other kvpaxos replica may also be trying to use that instance for a different client's operation. So the kvpaxos server has to be prepared to try different instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your kvpaxos servers should not directly communicate; they should only interact with each other through the Paxos log.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** as in Lab 2, you will need to uniquely identify client operations to ensure that they execute just once. Also as in Lab 2, you can assume that each clerk has only one outstanding Put or Get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a kvpaxos server should not complete a `Get()` RPC if it is not part of a majority (so that it does not serve stale data). This means that each `Get()` (as well as each `Put()`) must involve Paxos agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** don't forget to call the Paxos `Done()` method when a kvpaxos has processed an instance and will no longer need it or any previous instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your code will need to wait for Paxos instances to complete agreement. The only way to do this is to periodically call `Status()`, sleeping between calls. How long to sleep? A good plan is to check quickly at first, and then more slowly:
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
1. Fill in the `Op` struct in `server.go` with the "value" information that
|
|
|
kvpaxos will use Paxos to agree on, for each client request. `Op` field names
|
|
|
must start with capital letters. You should use `Op` structs as the agreed-on
|
|
|
values -- for example, you should pass `Op` structs to Paxos `Start()`. Go's
|
|
|
RPC can marshall/unmarshall `Op` structs; the call to `gob.Register()` in
|
|
|
`StartServer()` teaches it how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Implement the `PutAppend()` handler in server.go. It should enter a `Put` or
|
|
|
`Append` Op in the Paxos log (i.e., use Paxos to allocate a Paxos instance,
|
|
|
whose value includes the key and value (so that other kvpaxoses know about
|
|
|
the `Put()` or `Append()`)). An `Append` Paxos log entry should contain the
|
|
|
`Append`'s arguments, but not the resulting value since it might be large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Implement a `Get()` handler. It should enter a `Get` Op in the Paxos log, and
|
|
|
then "interpret" the the log before that point to make sure its key/value
|
|
|
database reflects all recent `Put()`s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Add code to cope with duplicate client `Put()`s/`Append`()s -- i.e.
|
|
|
situations in which `client.go` sends the same request to multiple kvpaxos
|
|
|
replicas. The `Put()/Append()` should execute just once. Make sure that your
|
|
|
scheme for duplicate detection frees server memory quickly, for example by
|
|
|
having the client tell the servers which RPCs it has heard a reply for. It's
|
|
|
OK to piggyback this information on the next client request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your server should try to assign the next available Paxos instance
|
|
|
(sequence number) to each incoming client RPC. However, some other kvpaxos
|
|
|
replica may also be trying to use that instance for a different client's
|
|
|
operation. So the kvpaxos server has to be prepared to try different instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your kvpaxos servers should not directly communicate; they should only
|
|
|
interact with each other through the Paxos log.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** as in Lab 2, you will need to uniquely identify client operations to
|
|
|
ensure that they execute just once. Also as in Lab 2, you can assume that each
|
|
|
clerk has only one outstanding `Put`, `Append`, or `Get`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** a kvpaxos server should not complete a `Get()` RPC if it is not part
|
|
|
of a majority (so that it does not serve stale data). This means that each
|
|
|
`Get()` (as well as each `Put()` and `Append()`) must involve Paxos agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** don't forget to call the Paxos `Done()` method when a kvpaxos has
|
|
|
processed an instance and will no longer need it or any previous instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** your code will need to wait for Paxos instances to complete agreement.
|
|
|
The only way to do this is to periodically call `Status()`, sleeping between
|
|
|
calls. How long to sleep? A good plan is to check quickly at first, and then
|
|
|
more slowly:
|
|
|
|
|
|
```go
|
|
|
to := 10 * time.Millisecond
|
|
|
for {
|
|
|
decided, _ := kv.px.Status(seq)
|
|
|
if decided {
|
|
|
status, _ := kv.px.Status(seq)
|
|
|
if status == paxos.Decided {
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
time.Sleep(to)
|
|
|
if to < 10 * time.Second {
|
... | ... | @@ -212,11 +397,26 @@ Here's a reasonable plan: |
|
|
}
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
**Hint:** if one of your kvpaxos servers falls behind (i.e. did not participate in the agreement for some instance), it will later need to find out what (if anything) was agree to. A reasonable way to to this is to call `Start()`, which will either discover the previously agreed-to value, or cause agreement to happen. Think about what value would be reasonable to pass to `Start()` in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** When the test fails, check for gob error (e.g. `rpc: writing response: gob: type not registered for interface ...`) in the log because go doesn't consider the error fatal, although it is fatal for the lab.
|
|
|
**Hint:** if one of your kvpaxos servers falls behind (i.e. did not participate
|
|
|
in the agreement for some instance), it will later need to find out what (if
|
|
|
anything) was agree to. A reasonable way to to this is to call `Start()`, which
|
|
|
will either discover the previously agreed-to value, or cause agreement to
|
|
|
happen. Think about what value would be reasonable to pass to `Start()` in this
|
|
|
situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** When the test fails, check for gob error (e.g. `rpc: writing response:
|
|
|
gob: type not registered for interface ...`) in the log because go doesn't
|
|
|
consider the error fatal, although it is fatal for the lab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hint:** part B should take around 200 lines of code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Turn-in Instructions
|
|
|
Please follow the [same turn-in instructions](submission) as before. |
|
|
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
|
Please follow the [same turn-in instructions][submission] as before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[mit-lab]: http://nil.csail.mit.edu/6.824/2015/labs/lab-3.html
|
|
|
[submission]: submission |