That's great, but isn't the whole point of CRDTs that you don't actually need any special support as long as you get "access" to conflicting writes and can resolve them at the application level? It seems that they would be trivial to implement atop Riak-1.x, unless I'm missing something.
Don't get me wrong: Built-in support is fine and all, but it's hardly going to save the world.
EDIT: Just to add something other than skepticism, I found this video with Mark Shapiro quite interesting (and on-topic!)
Edited to say I'm a Basho employee and did a lot of the development work on CRDTs in Riak. Also, Hi!
You can use any CRDT implementation you want from the client. You can roll your own, or you can use riak_dt, or some other library. Indeed using a 3rd party CRDT library with Riak should be trivial, since conflicts are exposed to the user. Though there aren't many out there (yet?)
Writing your own Ad Hoc merge logic is somewhat more complex. Shapiro et al describe it as "complex, and error prone" in their CRDT paper. Google's F1 paper says:
"We also have a lot of experience with eventual consistency systems at Google. In all such systems, we find developers spend a significant fraction of their time building extremely complex and error-prone mechanisms to cope with eventual consistency"
and
"Designing applications to cope with concurrency anomalies in their data is very error-prone, time- consuming, and ultimately not worth the performance gains."
Building CRDTs into Riak is an attempt to mitigate this.
I don't think CRDTs built in to Riak will "save the world" but hopefully, for a portion of application developers, or potential developers, on Riak, built in CRDTs will make data modelling easier. It will, I hope, allow these developers to focus on their application, and not conflict resolution, when working with Riak.
Built in CRDTs are a step towards maturity for EC systems, I'm pretty excited about this work and think it opens up a lot of possibilities.
If you find making a general purpose, reusable library of state based CRDTs trivial, please send Basho a CV.
managing the # of actors, safely dealing with tombstones and reducing space complexity are just a few reasons why one might want CRDTs on the server side.
Not only that, why make every user reimplement the same resolution strategies? Or make Basho dev's reimplement them for each official client? You'll increase the chance for bugs or subtle semantic differences. Also, many users don't know or want to understand conflict resolution. They want a data structure that just "does the right thing". This is most easily achieved by baking it into the database itself.
Disclaimer: Former Basho developer with a lot of pride in the 2.0 release.
Can you add (or link to) something with more details?
"Managing the # of actors" doesn't make much sense to me without further context. I know that Erlang is actor-based, but that shouldn't matter if I'm e.g. a client of the system? Also, I'm not sure what "safely dealing with tombstones" would mean -- what additional safety is added by "server-side" CRTDs which cannot be achieved with client-side code (and how so?). (Etc.)
Full disclosure: I’m a current employee of Basho Technologies.
Other than some supporting work [1] [2] introduced into 2.0 to provide advanced causality tracking, you’re correct in assuming we could have introduced more [3] CRDTs as part of the Riak 1.x series. We could have also implemented all of the CRDTs we provide in the client as well, which is similar to what the SwiftCloud CRDT reference platform does.
There's a couple important things to note here, however:
* When talking about merging conflicting writes, we are specifically referring to state-based CRDTs, not operation-based, which is what we have implemented in Riak.
* Retrieving conflicting writes from the client, or siblings as we call them in Riak, requires bringing all of the siblings to the client, performing the merge operation, and shipping the updated state back. Given this, the number of siblings an object can have on disk, assuming all merge operations happen at the client, is potentially unbounded if you never ever read, and only ever write. When implemented on the server, we can ensure that we perform this merge operation during both the read and write cycle, keeping the sibling count down to one and reducing the amount of state we need to ship to the client.
* In addition, we use the coordinating node (really, a combination of virtual node and partition index) of the write as the "participant" or "actor" for the operation. This is not to be confused with actor model based languages. This allows us to have better control over actor growth; when dealing with clients all writing to CRDTs, every single particpant needs to have a unique actor id. Recall, that most of the CRDTs track actor counts, for instance the G-Counter which is structurally equivalent to a vector clock, although semantically different. This introduces a problem of garbage collection. Interval tree clocks, is one such solution for addressing the problem, but can not be used as the basis for some CRDTs. [4]
* Finally, there is work underway in making state-based CRDTs more efficient through "delta-CRDTs" [5], which allow for a more efficient optimistic and anti-entropy repair mechanism.
While the most notable resource for exploring CRDTs continues to be the comprehensive report by Shapiro, et al, [6] in practice many of the data structures outlined here have unbounded growth in garbage (specifically referring to items such as the OR set, which tracks an object for every operation performed). Therefore, we rely on some of the more optimized representations which don’t accumulate garbage. [7] In addition, the conflict-free, composable, replicated map structure, which is provided by Riak 2.0 was specifically invented by Basho, and it is the first of its kind. [8] It took many hours and iterations on QuickCheck models to ensure that, given somewhat arbitrary composition, that merge operations happened correctly. This is why there has been interest in exploring alternative ways of checking or building these models. [9]
By storing these CRDTs at the server-side, we also are able to provide a operation-based interface for interacting with these objects from all of our clients, and leave the complexity of implementing the CRDTs out of the client. This additionally allows for our search offering, Yokozuna, to be able to index these data types and provide query over their values.
Don't get me wrong: Built-in support is fine and all, but it's hardly going to save the world.
EDIT: Just to add something other than skepticism, I found this video with Mark Shapiro quite interesting (and on-topic!)
http://msrvideo.vo.msecnd.net/rmcvideos/153540/dl/153540.mp4