<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>CRDTs: Consistency without concurrency control · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0907.0929/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0907.0929/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>CRDTs: Consistency without concurrency control — mentioned by cemerick</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7745151</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0907.0929:7745151</guid><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 18:04:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;A lot of different distributed storage and computation architectures are special cases of CRDTs, just with different sets of commutative operations and/or convergent types of state. (One of the aspects of CRDTs that I most appreciate, as it provides a framework within which one can compare different technologies in a thoroughgoing way.) Ones I like to cite as common examples that people have often touched before are datastores like Riak, CouchDB, and S3. The document model treatment you describe is talked about some in the Shapiro et al. paper as a &amp;quot;continuous sequence&amp;quot;, and is roughly what…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0907.0929/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item></channel></rss>
