Skip navigation

Bright and early next Monday morning I’m giving the keynote talk at PODS, the annual database theory conference.  The topic: (a) to summarize seven years of experience using logic to build distributed systems and network protocols (including P2, DSN, and recent BOOM work), and (b) to set out some ideas about the foundations of distributed and parallel programming that fell out from that experience.

I posted the paper underlying the talk, called The Declarative Imperative: Experiences and Conjectures in Distributed Logic. It’s written for database theoreticians, and in a spirit of academic fun it’s maybe a little over the top.  But I’m hopeful that the main ideas can clarify how we think about the practice of building distributed systems, and the languages we design for that purpose.  The talk will be streamed live and archived (along with keynotes from the SIGMOD and SOCC conferences later in the week.)

Below the break is a preview of the big ideas.  I’ll post about them at more length over the next few weeks, hopefully in more practical/approachable terms than I’m using for PODS.

  1. The CALM Conjecture. CALM stands for “Consistency And Logical Monotonicity”. The conjecture maps out the systems that can be implemented in an eventually consistent fashion without any coordination or waiting across sites. The answer? Systems that can be expressed in monotonic logic.  As a somewhat simplified rubric, this includes systems that (a) do append-only updates (no overwriting) and (b) never try to aggregate data across sites via counting, summing, voting, finding a max or min, etc.  (This is more restrictive than what CALM intends: these behaviors can in fact be “used” monotonically in special cases.  More on that another day.)  Interestingly, cross-site joins and recursion are included: these are monotonic operations and can easily be implemented in an eventually consistent, streaming fashion.
  2. The CRON Conjecture. CRON stands for “Causality Required Only for Non-Monotonicity”.  It’s an extension or corollary of CALM to address classic distributed systems complexities of coordinating clocks across machines (Lamport’s famous foundations and follow-ons).  It basically says that you can toss out all of that distributed clocks stuff if your program is monotonic (a corollary of CALM), and also says that you need that stuff if the results you ship between machines are involved in non-monotonic operations—again, aggregation and state overwrites are the standard examples. As a side-note, it also argues that monotonic systems will work correctly even if messages are delivered at an earlier time than they are sent!  (If you think this sounds nuts, think about restarting a process but reusing its message logs from earlier runs to save work.)
  3. The Fateful Time Conjecture. This one is more cosmic — it tries to explain the underlying purpose of Time in computing (and maybe in general).  The basic idea is that Time (meaning both the sequentiality of program steps in a single “thread”, and coordination of steps across threads/machines) is needed for only one purpose: to prevent multiple possible states from co-occurring. I.e. the purpose of time is to seal fate at each instantaneous moment. What happens if you don’t seal fate?  One of two things: (a) logically impossible things like “P and Not P” co-occur, or (b) multiple non-deterministic choices among valid possibilities co-occur (so-called “multiple worlds”). I’m claiming that if you are using synchronization in a program — i.e. preventing things from happening in parallel — then you should convince yourself that the parallelism you avoided would have led to those conditions.  Otherwise you are Wasting Time.  (Did you think through this the last time you wrote a two consecutive lines in Java/Python/C?  I didn’t think so.  Hopefully Bloom will help automate that thinking for you!)


  1. Great talk!

  2. I wonder how far applications that use the CQRS architecture (as advocated by Greg Young et all.) need be extended to fall the rules outlined in this article. Not a lot I guess.

  3. Great talk and very engaging…liked the game and the message behind it.

  4. What a gentle, yet evocative, exposition of a nontraditional worldview of eventually-consistent protocol design. networking people would indeed benefit if they borrow the nomenclature. “the purpose of time is to seal fate”… i’ll certainly be borrowing that line!

  5. Kind words, Todd. Thanks. If you haven’t had a look at our more recent CIDR 2011 paper, please do — it puts some systems meat on these bones.

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Hellerstein wrote an overview of the paper in a blog post. What follows is from that […]

  2. […] Hellerstein wrote an overview of the paper in a blog post. What follows is from that […]

  3. […] discussion comes out of my PODS talk on the Declarative Imperative from last June.  Bill Marczak, Peter Alvaro and I are in the midst of writing up a formal proof. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: