consistency-coordination

name

consistency-coordination

description

This skill should be used when the user asks about the "CAP theorem", "PACELC", a "consistency model", "eventual vs strong consistency", "read-your-writes", "causal consistency", "quorum" or "R+W>N", "consensus", "Raft / Paxos", "leader election", "consistent hashing", a "distributed transaction", "2PC", or "saga". Use it whenever a design has multiple copies of data or coordinating nodes and a decision hinges on what a reader is guaranteed to see during replication lag, a network partition, or a node failure — even if the user doesn't say "consistency".

Consistency & Coordination

Decide what a reader is guaranteed to see when data lives on more than one node, and how independent nodes agree on a single answer. Get this wrong and the system either serves stale or conflicting data silently, or stalls the moment a network link drops — the most common and most punishing distributed-systems failure.

When to reach for this

Any time state is replicated, sharded, or coordinated across nodes: choosing a replication or quorum scheme, picking a consistency level, electing a leader, spreading keys across an elastic fleet (consistent hashing), or committing a change that spans services. Reach here the instant someone asks "what does a read see right after a write?" or "what happens during a partition?"

When NOT to

A single node with no replicas has nothing to coordinate — don't invoke quorums or consensus for it (YAGNI). Most apps tolerate seconds of staleness; reaching for strong consistency or distributed transactions when eventual consistency would do buys latency and operational pain for a guarantee no requirement asked for. The cheapest model that satisfies the invariant wins. Naming Raft or 2PC before a correctness requirement forces it is a red flag.

Clarify first

• What breaks if a read is stale? A wrong balance vs a slightly old like count are different systems. (→ requirements-scoping.)
• Must a user see their own writes immediately? Read-your-writes is far cheaper than global strong consistency.
• What is the blast radius of a partition or lost region? Drives the CAP/PACELC choice. (GUIDE failure mode #1.)
• Write contention and conflict shape — single-writer per key, or concurrent writers needing conflict resolution?
• Latency budget — synchronous coordination adds a round trip (or a cross-region one); confirm the budget allows it. (→ back-of-the-envelope.)

The options

Pick a consistency model (the guarantee a read gets):

• Strong / linearizable — every read sees the latest committed write. Use when an invariant must hold globally (balances, inventory, uniqueness).
• Read-your-writes / monotonic — a session sees its own writes and never goes backward. Use for profile edits, "post then see your post".
• Causal — reads respect cause→effect order (a reply never precedes its parent). Use for comments, chat, collaborative edits.
• Eventual — replicas converge "soon"; reads may lag. Use for like counts, feeds, caches — anything where staleness is cheap.

Pick how copies agree:

• Single-leader (primary) — one node orders all writes; followers replicate. Use when a clear write owner is acceptable; the common default.
• Quorum (R + W > N) — read/write to a majority; tune R and W per workload. Use for leaderless stores needing tunable consistency and availability.
• Consensus (Raft / Paxos) — a majority agrees on a replicated log, even across failures. Use for the control plane: leader election, config, metadata, locks.

Coordinate a multi-key / multi-service change:

• Saga — a sequence of local transactions with compensating undos. Use across services where a global lock is impossible; accepts eventual consistency.
• 2PC / distributed transaction — atomic all-or-nothing across nodes via a coordinator. Use only when atomicity is mandatory and the cost is accepted.

Spread keys across nodes — consistent hashing (this skill owns it): map keys and nodes onto a hash ring; a key belongs to the next node clockwise. Adding or removing a node remaps only ~K/N keys instead of nearly all (as plain hash(key) % N does), avoiding a remap storm. Virtual nodes even out load and tame hotspots. It is the standard partitioning scheme for caches, leaderless stores, and LB backends. Mechanics in references/deep-dive.md.

Trade-offs

Option	What it solves	What it worsens	Change it when
Strong/linearizable	Correctness; no stale reads	Latency (a round trip / quorum); unavailable under partition (CP)	Staleness becomes tolerable → relax to read-your-writes/eventual
Read-your-writes	"See my own change" without global cost	Other users still see stale; needs session/sticky routing	A global invariant appears → go strong
Eventual	Highest availability + lowest latency (AP)	Stale and conflicting reads; needs conflict resolution	An invariant can't tolerate divergence → stronger model
Single-leader	Simple ordering; no write conflicts	Leader is a write SPOF; failover gap; reads from followers lag	Write throughput exceeds one node, or leader region lost → multi-leader/quorum
Quorum (R+W>N)	Tunable consistency vs availability per call	Higher read+write cost; still needs conflict handling on concurrent writes	Even one quorum slow path is too costly → leader or local reads
Consensus (Raft/Paxos)	Agreement that survives node loss	Majority required (loses availability below quorum); write latency; complex	The data plane needs it at scale → push coordination to a service
Saga	Cross-service change without a global lock	No isolation; partial states visible; must design compensations	True atomicity is required → 2PC (and accept its cost)
2PC	Atomic multi-node commit	Coordinator is a SPOF; locks held across the vote; blocks on failure	Availability/throughput matter more than strict atomicity → saga

Behavior under stress

This block's whole purpose is the failure case — what happens when the network or a node breaks (GUIDE #1, #6).

• Network partition is the forcing function (the C-vs-A choice in CAP). A CP/strong system rejects writes on the minority side to protect invariants — it trades availability for correctness. An AP/eventual system accepts writes everywhere and reconciles later — it trades correctness for availability. State which one you chose and why; there is no third option that keeps both.
• Leader loss triggers an election. During the gap, writes pause (single-leader) or proceed risky (if you let a stale leader keep writing → split-brain and divergent histories). Fencing tokens and a majority quorum prevent two leaders.
• Quorum below majority (too many nodes down) means a strict quorum store stops accepting writes — by design. More nodes down than N − W blocks writes; more than N − R blocks reads.
• Coordination amplifies outages: a 2PC coordinator crash leaves participants holding locks (blocking); a consensus cluster that loses quorum freezes the control plane and everything depending on it. Aggressive leader-election timeouts can cause election storms (repeated re-elections under load).
• Monitor: replication lag (the staleness window), leader-election rate and duration, quorum health (reachable nodes vs N), conflict/repair rate, and—for consistent hashing—per-node key distribution and rebalance volume.

Failover trade-offs (active-passive vs active-active, data-loss windows) are covered by resilience-failure; this block supplies the consistency cost of each.

How to apply

1. Clarify the invariant. Pin down what breaks on a stale or conflicting read, whether a user must see their own writes, and the partition blast radius (use the Clarify-first questions). No invariant → default to eventual and stop.
2. Pick the model and the agreement scheme from the Trade-offs table: match the guarantee to the weakest invariant the data can tolerate, then choose single-leader / quorum / consensus by who owns writes and what must survive node loss. Add a saga or 2PC only when a change spans services and atomicity is forced.
3. Set the knobs. Pin the consistency level per operation (not per datastore), set N, R, W so R + W > N where overlap is required, choose a conflict policy (LWW / version-vector / app resolver), and pick consistent hashing for key placement when the fleet is elastic.
4. Stress-test the choice. State the CAP stance explicitly: what happens on a partition, on leader loss, and below quorum. Confirm split-brain is fenced and coordination can't amplify an outage into a cluster-wide freeze.
5. Size it with numbers. Price the coordination round trips (same-DC vs cross-region) against the latency budget and size N for the failure target, via back-of-the-envelope. If strong consistency blows the budget, relax the model.
6. Map to a provider. Default to the generic recipe; if a cloud is named, read its provider file for the managed consistency knobs and quorum-store limits.

Dos and don'ts

Do

• Pin the guarantee on the operation — most reads eventual, only invariant-bearing ones strong — so coordination cost is paid only where it earns correctness.
• State the CAP stance out loud: on a partition, name which side rejects writes (CP) or accepts and reconciles (AP). There is no option that keeps both.
• Size R, W, N for overlap and a failure target, and fence leaders with a majority quorum plus fencing tokens.
• Return a version (or vector clock) so callers can detect and resolve conflicts.

Don't

• Don't reach for strong consistency, consensus, or 2PC before an invariant forces it — staleness is usually cheap, and global coordination buys latency and pain.
• Don't run synchronous strong consistency or 2PC across regions on a tight write budget; a cross-region round trip can add 100 ms+.
• Don't let a stale leader keep writing during an election gap — that is split-brain.
• Don't shard keys with hash(key) % N; a membership change then remaps nearly all keys instead of ~K/N.

Numbers that matter

Coordination cost is dominated by round trips, not CPU. A same-datacenter round trip is sub-millisecond; a cross-region one is tens to ~100+ ms — so synchronous strong consistency or 2PC across regions can add 100 ms+ per write. Quorum size is ⌊N/2⌋ + 1; with N=3, two nodes must agree, so the cluster survives one failure. Consistent hashing remaps only ~K/N keys on a membership change (vs ~all for modulo). Use the latency table and the availability-nines math in back-of-the-envelope to price the round trips and to size N for a failure target.

Interface sketch

The contract is the guarantee, stated explicitly per operation, plus the knobs that produce it:

ConsistencyLevel: STRONG | READ_YOUR_WRITES | CAUSAL | EVENTUAL
Quorum:           N (replicas), W (write acks), R (read acks)  // R + W > N ⇒ overlap
Write API:        write(key, value, level=STRONG) -> {version|vector_clock}
Read API:         read(key, level=EVENTUAL)       -> {value, version, stale?: bool}
Conflict policy:  last-write-wins(ts) | version-vector-merge | app-resolver

Pin the level on the operation, not the datastore — most reads can be eventual while a few (the invariant-bearing ones) demand strong. Return a version so callers can detect and resolve conflicts.

Choosing a provider

Default to the generic recipe above. If the user names a cloud, read references/providers/<provider>.md for the managed-service mapping, quotas/limits, and provider-specific trade-offs. If no file exists for that provider, the generic recipe is the answer.

Diagram

To visualize a leader-follower-under-partition scenario, a quorum read/write, or a consistent-hashing ring, use the in-plugin architecture-diagram skill. An inline sketch (client → leader → [replication stream] → followers, with the partition as a dashed/broken arrow) is fine for quick reasoning; do not embed Mermaid.

Related building blocks

• data-storage — pairs with this: it owns replication and sharding/partitioning (the mechanics), this block supplies the consistency guarantee they enforce.
• messaging-streaming — alternative to coordinating in the data plane: message ordering and exactly-once delivery are the same problem at the transport layer; pair when events must be ordered or deduplicated.
• resilience-failure — feeds into this: it owns failover, retries, and graceful degradation; this block prices the consistency cost of the availability mechanics it provides.
• caching — depends on consistent hashing (the owned-concept lives here) to shard a distributed cache, and trades freshness for speed.
• back-of-the-envelope — owned-concept lives in it: the latency table and availability-nines math used to price round trips and size N.
• service-decomposition — depends on this for cross-service consistency (saga/2PC) and for the coordination behind service discovery (leader election, etcd/Consul/ZooKeeper).
• system-design — the orchestrator that routes here when a design replicates or coordinates state.

References

• references/deep-dive.md — CAP vs PACELC in full, consistency-model mechanics, the quorum math, Raft/Paxos at a high level, leader election & split-brain (fencing), consistent-hashing ring + virtual nodes, and 2PC vs saga internals. Read when designing the coordination layer in detail.
• references/providers/{generic,aws,gcp}.md — coordination services (ZooKeeper/etcd/Consul), quorum stores, and the managed consistency knobs (e.g. Spanner external consistency, DynamoDB consistent-read flag) per environment.