Doesn't Multi-Paxos already have stable leaders? My understanding was that the innovation here was to relay prepare/promise/accept/accepted across a random relay network.
Yes, it's a nitpick. The comparison to Multi-Paxos seems fair because it makes similar assumptions (unless re-configuring the relay network after a leader failure is somehow difficult, but I wouldn't expect that).
My point is that it would be nice to benchmark protocols that take into account the issues I brought up, and measure what happens in the worst failure scenarios they are supposed to tolerate. Otherwise we get a false sense of what performance can be achieved if one really cares about fault-tolerance.
This small issue does not diminish the main contribution of the paper in any way.
My point is that it would be nice to benchmark protocols that take into account the issues I brought up, and measure what happens in the worst failure scenarios they are supposed to tolerate. Otherwise we get a false sense of what performance can be achieved if one really cares about fault-tolerance.
This small issue does not diminish the main contribution of the paper in any way.