
Implementing atomic actions on decentralized data (1983) - mpweiher
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/357353.357355
======
mratsim
For proving distributed computing protocol soundness, I'm a big fan of formal
verification and model checking, in particular TLA+[1] by Leslie Lamport who
is behind the Lamport clocks referenced in the paper and curiously Latex, and
the well known Byzantine generals problem in blockchains.

In particular a peer-reviewed on synchronization protocol has been proven
incorrect on a subtle race condition using formal verification.

[1]:
[https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html)

------
agazso
Link to the PDF

[http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Classes/739/Spring2003/Paper...](http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Classes/739/Spring2003/Papers/p3-reed.pdf)

------
mav3rick
2PC ?

~~~
mratsim
2-Phase-Commit protocol i.e. a scheme with "prepare-commit" and eventual
rollback.

~~~
lou1306
It is worth noticing that this paper presents a slightly more advanced
protocol than 2PC. Relevant quote (page 21):

> The major difference is that, in our scheme, the uncommitted state of the
> token prevents other atomic actions from reading it.

The base 2PC protocol seems to be quite older than 1983. Arguably the first
mention of 2PC in the literature is in "Notes on Data Base Operating Systems"
by J. Gray (1978), and even that paper is "a compendium of data base
management operating systems folklore".

------
rambojazz
Did they really paywall a paper from 1983?

