created doc/talks subfolder and added my talk and the previous one done at the wide teamtalks

1 files changed, 323 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/talks/2021-04-28_spirals-team/sota.tex b/doc/talks/2021-04-28_spirals-team/sota.tex
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..23b9087a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/talks/2021-04-28_spirals-team/sota.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+\section{State of the art}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{The CAP theorem}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\begin{block}{Eric Brewer's theorem}
+``A shared-state system can have \textbf{at most two} of the following properties at any given time:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item \textbf{C}onsistency
+	\item \textbf{A}vailability
+	\item \textbf{P}artition tolerance''
+\end{itemize}
+\end{block}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+\Large 
+Under network partitions, a distributed data store has to sacrifice either availability or consistency.
+\end{center}
+\vfill
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item \textbf{Consistency-first}: Abort incoming queries;
+	\item \textbf{Availability-first}: Return possibly stale data.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Consistency-first: the ACID model}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\textbf{Transaction}: unit of work within an ACID data store. 
+%Comprises multiple operations.
+%E.g. bank transfer.
+%E.g. a bank transfer from A to B is a transaction involving two operations: withdraw money from A & credit B with the same money amount. 
+\vfill
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item \textbf{\underline{A}tomicity}: Transactions either complete entirely or fail.
+
+	No transaction ever seen as in-progress.
+
+	\item \textbf{\underline{C}onsistency}: Transactions always generate a valid state.
+
+	The database maintains its invariants across transactions.
+
+	\item \textbf{\underline{I}solation}: Concurrent transactions are seen as sequential.
+
+	Transactions are serializable, or sequentially consistent.
+
+	\item \textbf{\underline{D}urability}: Committed transactions are never forgotten.
+\end{itemize}
+\vfill\centering
+
+Reads are fast, writes are slow.
+
+\vfill\raggedright
+
+Example: relational databases.
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}[fragile]{Concurrent writes in ACID}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+
+\begin{columns}
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+	\begin{block}{}
+		\begin{lstlisting}
+transaction AcqDoses(y):
+  x <- SELECT #vaccines;
+  UPDATE #vaccines = (x + y);
+		\end{lstlisting}
+	\end{block}
+	\vspace{5ex}
+
+	Supports compound operations.
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+\centering
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/conflict_acid.pdf}
+\end{columns}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Availability-first: the BASE model}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+
+Some apps prefer availability, e.g. Amazon products' reviews.
+\vfill 
+
+The BASE model trades Consistency \& Isolation for Availability.
+
+
+%Some applications do not care about strong consistency and prefer being highly available (e.g. Amazon's product reviews).
+
+%In order to achieve higher availability, the BASE model relaxes consistency constraints of the ACID model: "eventual consistency".
+\vfill
+
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item \textbf{\underline{B}asic \underline{A}vailability}: 
+	The data store thrives to be available.
+
+	\item \textbf{\underline{S}oft-state}: 
+	Replicas can disagree on the valid state.
+
+	\item \textbf{\underline{E}ventual consistency}: 
+	In the absence of write queries, 
+	the data store will eventually converge to a single valid state.
+\end{itemize}
+\vfill\centering
+
+Writes are fast, reads are slow.
+
+\vfill\raggedright
+
+Examples: key-value \& object stores.
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Concurrent writes in BASE}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\begin{columns}
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+	\begin{block}{Object}
+		\begin{itemize}
+			\item Unique key
+			\item Arbitrary value 
+			\item Metadata
+		\end{itemize}
+	\end{block}
+	\vspace{5ex} 
+
+	Conflict resolution = client's job!
+	\vspace{5ex}
+
+	No compound operations.
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/conflict_base.pdf}
+\end{columns}
+
+% KV storage is another example, distinction is minor here
+
+% Object = unique key, arbitrary value, metadata.
+
+% Object storage only provides semantics to investigate causal order of queries *for individual objects*. No compound operations, no transactions.
+
+% Much easier to distribute, and "scale-out".
+
+% Write is fast, read is slow (gotta collect all object versions).
+
+% \todo{vaccines example with BASE model}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{Strong Eventual Consistency w/ CRDTs}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\centering\small
+
+\fullcite{defago_conflict-free_2011}
+
+\vfill\raggedright\normalsize
+
+\begin{block}{Strong Eventual Consistency (SEC)}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item CRDTs specify distributed operations
+		\item Conflicts will be solved according to specification
+		\item Proven \& bound eventual convergence
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{block}
+
+\vfill\centering
+\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{figures/crdt.pdf}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}[fragile]{Concurrent writes with CRDTs}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\begin{columns}
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+	\begin{block}{}
+		\begin{lstlisting}
+CRDT Counter(x0):
+  history = {}
+  op. incr(y):
+    history U= {(UUID(), y)}
+  op. decr(y):
+    history U= {(UUID(), -y)}
+  op. read():
+    x = x0
+    for (_, y) in history:
+    	x += y
+    return x
+		\end{lstlisting}
+	\end{block}
+	\vspace{2ex}
+
+	Operations commute?
+
+	$\implies$ screw total order!
+\column{.5\columnwidth}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/conflict_crdt.pdf}
+\end{columns}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{A complex CRDT: the DAG}{Consistency vs. Availability}
+
+\centering
+\only<1>{\includegraphics[height=\textheight]{figures/dag_crdt.png}}%
+\only<2>{
+	Just to say I swept a lot under the rug.
+	\vfill
+
+	For details, go read:
+
+	\fullcite{defago_conflict-free_2011}
+	\vfill
+
+	For an implementation, check \textbf{AntidoteDB}.
+}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\begin{frame}{State of the practice}{Path dependency to the ``cloud''}
+
+\begin{block}{The BASE model is fashionable because}
+\centering 
+
+``\emph{High-performance} object storage for \emph{AI analytics} with PBs of \emph{IoT data streams} at the \emph{edge}, using \emph{5G}.''
+	% \begin{itemize}
+	% 	\item Highest performance 
+	% 	\item IoT data streams are inherently distributed
+	% \end{itemize}
+\end{block}
+
+\vfill\centering
+
+\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{figures/minio_edge.png}
+
+\vfill\raggedright
+
+
+%\begin{block}{}
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Always backed by cloud: high performance network links.
+	\item Edge nodes always seen as clients or data sources, not peers.
+\end{itemize}
+%\end{block}
+
+% There is \textbf{always a central cloud cluster} in these use-cases.
+
+% Hidden constraint: \textbf{high performance inter-node connectivity}.
+
+
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% \begin{frame}{A brief history of storage}
+
+% We keep it short because we'll follow chronological order in the next section too.
+
+% \end{frame}
+
+
+% \begin{frame}{In the beginning, there were \emph{monoliths}}
+
+% \includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{figures/stonehenge.jpg}
+
+% Web applications used to be monolithic:
+
+% \begin{itemize}
+% 	\item One or two servers;
+% 	\item Availability was not an obsession;
+% 	\item Latency was acceptable.
+% \end{itemize}
+
+% Relational databases were queens.
+
+% \end{frame}
+
+
+% \begin{frame}{Then came \emph{expectations}}
+% Then, the whole world went online, and suddenly: expectations!
+
+% \begin{itemize}
+% 	\item ``Milliseconds matter.'' (Algolia slogan)
+% 	\item Critical networked services (healthcare, logistics) need 100\% availability 
+% \end{itemize}
+
+% $\implies$ Microservices \& horizontal scalability.
+
+% \todo{Develop on the `herd not sheep' paradigm a bit.}
+
+% \end{frame}
+
+
+% \begin{frame}{Distributing state/storage: the remaining unknown}
+
+% The microservices orchestration game works well for \emph{stateless} services.
+
+% However, any application requires \emph{state}, persistent data. 
+
+% And this is tough. As we will now see.
+
+% (Not that it's not well studied: distributed storage has always been fashionable.)
+	
+% \end{frame}
\ No newline at end of file