CAP Theorem July 11, 2024 by Marcos Benevides

:ID: 74c5509d-73be-4b04-9ca4-039117d588a9

First postulated by Eric Brewer in (Brewer 2000), and formally proved in (Gilbert and Lynch 2002).

Definitions

For (Brewer 2000), a distributed system has some very specific properties and behaviour, being a collected set of Nodes that all share data. A limitation of such systems happens when a write request is followed by a read request.

       ┌────────┐
       │ Client │
       └────────┘
     [R] ^    | [W]
         |    v
┌−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┐
╎         System          ╎
╎              ┌────┐     ╎
╎   ┌──────────│ a0 │──┐  ╎
╎   │          └────┘  │  ╎
╎   │             │    │  ╎
╎ ┌────┐       ┌────┐  │  ╎
╎ │ a3 │───────│ a1 │  │  ╎
╎ └────┘       └────┘  │  ╎
╎                 │    │  ╎
╎              ┌────┐  │  ╎
╎              │ a2 │──┘  ╎
╎              └────┘     ╎
└−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┘

The Theorem states that for any given pair of requests this kind of system can only guarantee two out of three properties:

Consistency

The system can read data that is (at least) as fresh as what has been just written.

Avaliability

Every request received by a non-failing node in the system must result in a response.

Partition Tolerance

The network will be allowed to lose arbitrarily many messages sent from one node to another.

Idea of the Proof

Here is a sketch of the proof provided in (Gilbert and Lynch 2002), consider the same system as before, but focus on a pair of requests (R/W) and two nodes.

                [W]
    ┌──────────────────────────┐
    v                          │
┌−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┐       │
╎        System        ╎       │
╎                      ╎       │
╎ ┌────┐        ┌────┐ ╎ [R] ┌──────┐
╎ │ a0 │ ────── │ a1 │ ╎────>│Client│
╎ └────┘        └────┘ ╎     └──────┘
╎                      ╎
└−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┘

Assume, via contraction, that such a system does follow all CAP properties. Given a network partition between a0 and a1, the followig will happen:

                [W]
    ┌──────────────────────────┐
    v                          │
┌−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┐       │
╎        System        ╎       │
╎                      ╎       │
╎ ┌────┐        ┌────┐ ╎ [R] ┌──────┐
╎ │ a0 │ ──//── │ a1 │ ╎─??─>│Client│
╎ └────┘        └────┘ ╎     └──────┘
╎                      ╎
└−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−┘

1. a1 will never receive an update from a0, which will break its avaliability promises (by never delivering the new result)
2. a1 sends stale data back to the client, breaking the consistency property.

References