<story><title>Neat Algorithms: Paxos</title><url>http://harry.me/blog/2014/12/27/neat-algorithms-paxos/?hn=1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>krat0sprakhar</author><text>This is up for debate but this[0], IMHO, is pretty much the gold standard of explaining distributed algorithms.&lt;p&gt;[0] - &lt;a href=&quot;http://thesecretlivesofdata.com/raft/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;thesecretlivesofdata.com&amp;#x2F;raft&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nacs</author><text>Thanks the presentation, helps a lot.&lt;p&gt;Quick question though. On this slide ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://i.imgur.com/m02CMxx.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;i.imgur.com&amp;#x2F;m02CMxx.png&lt;/a&gt; ) it shows a network split condition and shows how the 2 split networks will eventually negotiate and the 3 node split wins because it had a majority while the 2 node side&amp;#x27;s uncommitted changes are thrown out.&lt;p&gt;What happens if the split happens right down the middle (3 active nodes on each side instead of the 2 and 3)? Wouldn&amp;#x27;t both sides elect leaders that both have majorities with committed data?</text></comment>
<story><title>Neat Algorithms: Paxos</title><url>http://harry.me/blog/2014/12/27/neat-algorithms-paxos/?hn=1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>krat0sprakhar</author><text>This is up for debate but this[0], IMHO, is pretty much the gold standard of explaining distributed algorithms.&lt;p&gt;[0] - &lt;a href=&quot;http://thesecretlivesofdata.com/raft/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;thesecretlivesofdata.com&amp;#x2F;raft&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DAddYE</author><text>I agree, I would also add that Paxos seems exceptionally hard to get it right or at least this was what I saw so far in popular projects (i.e. Cassandra) that use it.</text></comment>