Last modified: February 21, 2022

This article is written in: 🇺🇸

Understanding the CAP Theorem

The CAP Theorem states that a distributed system cannot simultaneously guarantee all three of the following properties:

1. Consistency (C)
2. Availability (A)
3. Partition Tolerance (P)

This means that when designing a distributed system, you have to make trade-offs between these properties because achieving all three at the same time is impossible in the presence of a network partition.

After reading the material, you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What are the three core properties of the CAP Theorem, and what does each property entail in a distributed system?
2. How does the CAP Theorem influence the trade-offs between consistency and availability during network partitions?
3. What are the differences between strong consistency and eventual consistency, and how do they relate to the CAP Theorem?
4. Can you provide real-world examples of CP, AP, and CA systems and explain how they prioritize the CAP properties?
5. What is the PACELC Theorem, and how does it extend the CAP Theorem to address trade-offs when the system is running normally?

Visualizing CAP Theorem

+----------+
             |    C     |
             +----------+
                 /  \
                /    \
               /  CAP  \
              / Theorem \
             / (Pick 2)  \
            /             \
   +-------+---------------+-------+
   |   A   |               |   P   |
   +-------+---------------+-------+
    
    

When you design or use a distributed system—like a global social network or an e-commerce platform with multiple data centers—you usually want three things:

1. Consistency (C) means that everyone sees the same data at the same time. If you update an item’s price in one data center, you want that update to show up everywhere else as quickly as possible, ensuring nobody sees an outdated price.
2. Availability (A) means that the system responds to your requests without delay. Even if there’s a surge of traffic or one part of the network is slow, you still want each data center or server to accept and handle requests instead of turning people away.
3. Partition Tolerance (P) means that the system continues working even if some machines or entire data centers lose network connectivity. In large-scale setups, partitions can happen at any time due to network failures, so the system must keep going despite these issues.

The CAP Theorem says that if a real partition occurs—meaning there’s a genuine break in communication between parts of your system—you can’t have perfect consistency and perfect availability simultaneously. You have to pick which one to sacrifice until the partition is resolved. In simpler terms, if your network is split, you can either:

• Refuse or delay some requests so that data stays consistent (sacrificing availability), or
• Let all requests go through so the system remains up, even though some responses may be outdated or inconsistent in certain parts of the system (sacrificing strict consistency).

The Three Properties Explained

Consistency (C)

Consistency ensures that all nodes in a distributed system see the same data at the same time. When a piece of data is written to the system, any subsequent read operation should return that updated data, no matter which node handles the request.

Example Scenario:

Imagine an online banking system where you transfer money from your savings to your checking account. Consistency guarantees that once the transfer is complete, any view of your accounts reflects the new balances immediately, regardless of which server handles your request.

Availability (A)

Availability means that every request receives a response, even if it's not the most recent data. The system remains operational and responsive, ensuring that users can always access some version of the data.

Example Scenario:

Consider a social media platform where users post updates. Even if some servers are experiencing issues, the system should still allow users to view and post updates, perhaps with slight delays or outdated information.

Partition Tolerance (P)

Partition Tolerance implies that the system continues to operate despite network partitions. A partition occurs when there's a break in communication between nodes, causing the network to split into disjoint subsets that can't communicate with each other.

Example Scenario:

Think of a global online retailer with data centers in different continents. If the network connection between these data centers fails, each should continue to process orders independently, even if they can't synchronize data immediately.

The Trade-Offs: Choosing Two Out of Three

In the presence of a network partition, a distributed system must choose between consistency and availability because partition tolerance is non-negotiable—you can't prevent network failures.

Here's an ASCII representation of the possible combinations:

+-------------------+
|     CAP Theorem   |
+-------------------+
|       |     |     |
|   C   |  A  |  P  |
|       |     |     |
+-------+-----+-----+
|  CA   | CP  | AP  |
+-------+-----+-----+

• Consistency and Availability (CA): Achieving both is possible only in environments without network partitions, where all nodes see the same data and are responsive.
• Consistency and Partition Tolerance (CP): Ensures that the system remains consistent and can tolerate network partitions but may compromise availability during partition events.
• Availability and Partition Tolerance (AP): Maintains system availability and handles network partitions but may result in inconsistent data across nodes.

Real-World Examples

Let's explore how different systems prioritize these properties through practical examples.

CP Systems: Prioritizing Consistency and Partition Tolerance

Apache Zookeeper

Apache Zookeeper is a centralized service for maintaining configuration information, naming, and providing distributed synchronization. It prioritizes consistency over availability during partitions.

How It Works:

• In the event of a network partition, Zookeeper ensures that any data reads and writes are consistent across the nodes that can communicate.
• If a majority of nodes cannot be reached, Zookeeper may become unavailable to maintain consistency.

Use Cases:

• Distributed locking mechanisms.
• Configuration management where consistency is critical.

AP Systems: Prioritizing Availability and Partition Tolerance

Cassandra

Apache Cassandra is a distributed NoSQL database designed for high availability and scalability without compromising performance.

How It Works:

• Cassandra continues to accept read and write requests during a network partition, ensuring availability.
• It allows for eventual consistency, where data changes propagate asynchronously across the nodes.

Use Cases:

• Applications requiring high availability, like real-time analytics.
• Systems where eventual consistency is acceptable.

CA Systems: Prioritizing Consistency and Availability (Rare in Practice)

In theory, CA systems provide both consistency and availability but do not tolerate partitions. However, in real-world distributed systems, partitions are inevitable due to network failures.

Single-Site Relational Databases

Traditional databases like MySQL running on a single server are effectively CA systems because they provide strong consistency and high availability as long as there's no partition (since they're not distributed).

Limitations:

• Lack of partition tolerance means they can't scale horizontally or handle network failures across multiple nodes.

Deeper Dive: Understanding Partitions

A partition occurs when there is a communication failure between nodes in a distributed system, causing them to be unable to synchronize data. This can be due to:

• Network failures.
• Hardware malfunctions.
• Software bugs.

Visual Representation of a Partition:

+--------------------+        +--------------------+
|     Node A         |        |     Node B         |
|   (Data Center 1)  |        |   (Data Center 2)  |
+--------------------+        +--------------------+
          |                               |
          |     Network Partition         |
          +-------------------------------+

In this scenario, Node A and Node B cannot communicate due to a network issue, creating a partition in the system.

Making Trade-Off Decisions

When designing a distributed system, it's essential to decide which properties to prioritize based on the application's requirements.

Prioritizing Consistency (CP Systems)

When to Choose CP:

• Data accuracy is critical.
• The application cannot tolerate stale or inconsistent data.
• Examples include financial transactions, inventory management, and systems where errors can have significant consequences.

Trade-Off:

• The system may become unavailable during partitions since it cannot guarantee both consistency and availability.

Prioritizing Availability (AP Systems)

When to Choose AP:

• The application must remain operational at all times.
• Users can tolerate reading slightly outdated data.
• Examples include social networks, content delivery networks, and services where availability is more critical than immediate consistency.

Trade-Off:

• Data may become inconsistent during partitions, requiring mechanisms to resolve conflicts later.

Consistency Models in Distributed Systems

Understanding different consistency models helps in designing systems that balance the CAP properties effectively.

Strong Consistency

• Guarantees that all nodes see the same data at the same time.
• Equivalent to having a single up-to-date copy of the data.
• Trade-Off: May reduce availability and increase latency.

Eventual Consistency

• Ensures that if no new updates are made to the data, eventually all accesses will return the last updated value.
• Allows for temporary inconsistencies.
• Trade-Off: Simpler to achieve high availability and partition tolerance.

Example of Eventual Consistency:

In a DNS system, when you update a domain's IP address, it may take time for the change to propagate globally due to caching, but eventually, all DNS servers will reflect the update.

Techniques to Mitigate CAP Limitations

Modern distributed systems employ various strategies to balance the CAP properties more effectively.

Conflict Resolution Strategies

• Using Last Write Wins (LWW) ensures that the most recent write takes precedence, overwriting earlier updates to resolve conflicts.
• Version vectors track data versions across nodes, enabling intelligent resolution of conflicts based on version history.
• Application-level resolution delegates conflict resolution to the application, allowing it to merge or prioritize updates based on domain-specific logic.

Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC)

• Allows multiple versions of data to exist, enabling read operations without locking.
• Helps in maintaining consistency without sacrificing availability.

Read Repair and Hinted Handoff

• Read repair occurs during read operations, where the system detects and updates outdated replicas to ensure consistency.
• Hinted handoff temporarily stores updates meant for unavailable nodes and delivers them once those nodes are back online, maintaining eventual consistency.

The PACELC Theorem: An Extension of CAP

The PACELC theorem extends CAP by addressing trade-offs even when the system is running normally (no partitions).

PACELC: "In case of Partition (P), trade-off between Availability (A) and Consistency (C); Else (E), when the system is running normally, trade-off between Latency (L) and Consistency (C)."

This theorem acknowledges that even without partitions, there's a trade-off between consistency and latency.

Implications:

• Systems that favor consistency over latency may respond slower because they ensure data is consistent before responding.
• Systems that favor latency may return faster responses at the expense of potentially serving stale data.

Practical Considerations for System Design

Understand Your Requirements

• Prioritize critical data integrity by focusing on consistency when data correctness and reliability are essential, such as in financial transactions.
• Emphasize user experience by favoring availability when system responsiveness and uptime are more important, such as in social media platforms.

Use Appropriate Technologies

• Choose a distributed database that aligns with the specific consistency, availability, and partition tolerance requirements of your application.
• CP-oriented databases prioritize consistency and partition tolerance; examples include HBase and Spanner.
• AP-oriented databases focus on availability and partition tolerance; examples include Cassandra and DynamoDB.

Implement Monitoring and Resilience

• Use monitoring tools to track network health and detect potential partitions or failures proactively.
• Implement resilience patterns such as retry mechanisms, circuit breakers, and failover strategies to maintain system stability during disruptions.

Real-World Case Study: Amazon's DynamoDB

As Amazon's customer base expanded globally, the company faced the challenge of managing an immense volume of shopping cart data. During peak shopping seasons like Black Friday or Prime Day, millions of users simultaneously added, updated, or removed items from their carts. To ensure a smooth and uninterrupted shopping experience, Amazon needed a database solution that could handle this massive scale while maintaining high availability.

Challenges Faced

1. During high-traffic events, the number of read and write operations on shopping cart data surged dramatically. The existing systems struggled to maintain performance levels, leading to slower response times and occasional downtime.
2. Any downtime in the shopping cart service could lead to frustrated customers abandoning their carts, resulting in lost sales and a tarnished reputation.
3. The system needed to seamlessly scale to accommodate fluctuating traffic without requiring significant architectural overhauls or manual intervention.
4. In a distributed environment, network issues or server failures are inevitable. Amazon needed to decide whether to prioritize data consistency or system availability to maintain a reliable shopping experience.

Design Priorities

Amazon chose to prioritize Availability and Partition Tolerance (the "AP" in the CAP theorem) for its shopping cart system. This decision was driven by the need to keep the shopping experience uninterrupted, even if it meant accepting temporary inconsistencies in the data.

• Availability: Ensuring that users could always access and modify their shopping carts, regardless of any underlying system issues.
• Partition Tolerance: Maintaining system operations despite network partitions or failures in certain parts of the infrastructure.

While Consistency—ensuring that all users see the most up-to-date cart information—was important, Amazon determined that occasional delays in data synchronization were acceptable to maintain overall system availability.

Implementation Details

• Amazon designed DynamoDB to operate across multiple data centers, ensuring that if one data center experiences issues, others can seamlessly take over.
• DynamoDB utilizes a flexible key-value and document data model, allowing for efficient storage and retrieval of shopping cart items.
• When a user adds or removes an item from their cart, the change is immediately written to the nearest data center and then propagated asynchronously to other replicas.
• While a user might not see their cart updates instantaneously across all devices, the system ensures that all replicas eventually reflect the latest state, maintaining data integrity without sacrificing performance.
• DynamoDB uses consistent hashing to evenly distribute shopping cart data across numerous servers, minimizing the risk of any single server becoming a bottleneck.
• When Amazon adds or removes servers to handle changing traffic loads, consistent hashing ensures that data redistribution is minimal, reducing the impact on system performance.
• DynamoDB automatically adjusts its capacity based on real-time traffic patterns, scaling up resources during unexpected traffic spikes like flash sales without manual intervention.
• Amazon integrated DynamoDB with DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX), an in-memory caching service, which significantly reduces read latency, ensuring that frequently accessed shopping cart data is retrieved almost instantly and enhancing the user experience.

Outcome and Benefits

• DynamoDB provided exceptional scalability by seamlessly managing millions of shopping carts simultaneously, maintaining consistent performance during high-traffic events like morning rushes or midnight sales.
• The service achieved high availability with a 99.99% uptime, ensuring that customers could always access their shopping carts even if an entire data center went offline.
• Low latency operations were maintained through DAX and efficient data distribution, processing actions like adding or updating cart items in milliseconds to provide a responsive shopping experience.
• DynamoDB ensured operational efficiency with automated scaling and maintenance, reducing the need for constant monitoring and manual adjustments.
• User satisfaction remained high despite eventual consistency, as minor delays in cart updates did not negatively impact the overall shopping experience or sales conversions.
• Cost optimization was achieved through DynamoDB's pay-as-you-go model, allowing Amazon to incur costs proportional to actual usage, especially during fluctuating traffic periods.