<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Vive la Différence: Paxos vs. Viewstamped Replication vs. Zab · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1309.5671/</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/1309.5671/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Vive la Différence: Paxos vs. Viewstamped Replication vs. Zab — mentioned by evanweaver</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18477544</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1309.5671:18477544</guid><pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2018 21:47:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;As a member of a team that has implemented Raft in production (https://fauna.com) and in conversation with others who have, the general consensus is that Raft, Paxos, and even Viewstamped Replication are variants of the same fundamental algorithm. There is an interesting paper about the commonalities in consensus here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5671.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1309.5671/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item><item><title>Vive la Différence: Paxos vs. Viewstamped Replication vs. Zab — mentioned by mjb</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13951115</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1309.5671:13951115</guid><pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:35:07 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;While we&amp;#x27;re here, it&amp;#x27;s also not true that all correct consensus protocols are Paxos. For example, Viewstamped Replication is correct, but a different algorithm (see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5671v3.pdf). There&amp;#x27;s a number of correct algorithms, and they all smell an awful lot like Paxos, but aren&amp;#x27;t all exactly Paxos. That&amp;#x27;s the hard part: nearly all Paxos-like algorithms are broken, but not all. Also from the &amp;quot;variants of Paxos&amp;quot; department is Flexible Paxos (https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/27/flexible-paxos-quorum-in...) which changes the rules about how to select a quorum.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1309.5671/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item><item><title>Vive la Différence: Paxos vs. Viewstamped Replication vs. Zab — mentioned by mjb</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8098228</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1309.5671:8098228</guid><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:40:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 1) How do you model the myriad fault types that could possibly occur in distributed systems? You need to think at the right level of abstraction. Are packet loss and reordering really different faults? Are packet loss to a node and the stop failure of that node different faults? The answers depend on your model. Lamport&amp;#x27;s Fast Paxos model is a good example of how different faults are handled in different levels of models (http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64624/tr-2005-112.pdf). &amp;gt; Is it possible to partially model a system? For example, in SOA, the behavior of a service can depend on and…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1309.5671/"&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>
