Design Pattern for Eventual Consistency
I recently have some good conversation from the cloud computing Google groups on the "eventual consistency" model. There is a general design pattern that I want to capture here.
The definition of data integrity
"Data integrity" is defined by the business people. It needs to hold at specific stages of the business operation cycle. Here we use a book seller example to illustrate. The data integrity is defined as ...
Sufficient books must be available in stock before shipment is made to fulfil an order.
The application designer, who design the application to support the business, may transform the "data integrity" as ...
Total_books_in_stock > sum_of_all_orders
The app designer is confident that if the above data integrity is observed, then the business integrity will automatically be observed. Note here that "data integrity" may be transformed by the application designer into a more restrictive form.
Now, the designer proceeds with the application implementation ... There are 2 approaches to choose from, with different implications of scalability.
The ACID approach
One way of ensuring the above integrity is observed is to use the traditional ACID approach. Here, a counter "no_of_books_in_stock" is used to keep track of available books in the most up-to-date fashion. When every new order enters, the transaction checks the data integrity still holds.
In this approach, "no_of_books_in_stock" becomes a shared state that every concurrent transacton need to access. Therefore, every transaction take turns sequentially to lock the shared state in order to achieve serializability. A choke point is created and the system is not very scalable.
Hence the second approach ...
The BASE approach
Instead of checking against a "shared state" at the order taking time, the order taking transaction may just get a general idea of how many books is available in stock at the beginning of the day and only checks against that. Note that this is not a shared state, and hence there is no choke points. Of course, since every transaction assumes no other transaction is proceeding, there is a possibility of over-booking.
At the end of the day, there is a reconciliation process that took the sum of all orders taken in the day, and check that against the number of books in stock. Data integrity checking is done here, but in batch mode which is much more efficient. In case the data integity is not maintained, the reconciliation process fire up compensating actions such as print more books, or refund some orders, in order to reestablish the data integrity.
Generalizing the Design pattern of BASE
"Eventual consistency" is based on the notion that every action is revokable by executing a "compensating action". However, all compensating actions different costs involved, which is the sum of this individual compensation plus all compensating actions that it triggers.
In BASE, the design goal is to reduce the probability of doing high-cost revokation. Note that BASE is a probablistic model while ACID is a binary, all-or-none model.
In BASE, data is organized into two kinds of "states": "Provisional state" and "Real state".
All online transactions should only read/write the provisional state, which is a local, non-shared view among these transactions. Since there is no shared state and choke point involved, online transactions can proceed very efficiently.
Real state reflects the actual state of the business (e.g. how many books are actually in stock), which always lacks behind the provisonal state. The "real state" and "provisional state" are brought together periodically via a batch-oriented reconciliation process.
Data integrity checking is defer until the reconciliation process executes. High efficiency is achieved because of its batch nature. When the data integrity does not hold, the reconciliation process will fire up compensating actions in order to reestablish the data integrity. At the end of the reconciliation, the provisional state and real state are brought in sync with each other.
To minimize the cost of compensating actions, we need to confine the deviation between the provisional state and the real state. This may mean that we need to do the reconciliation more frequently. We should also minimize the chaining effect of compensating actions.
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)