Consistency Models: Strong vs Eventual in Kubernetes

Consistency in Kubernetes boils down to how data is synchronised across nodes in distributed systems. Strong consistency ensures immediate data accuracy across all nodes, while eventual consistency prioritises availability and performance, allowing temporary mismatches that resolve over time. Here's what you need to know:

Key Takeaways:

• Strong Consistency: Guarantees all reads reflect the latest writes. Ideal for critical systems like banking or inventory management but comes with higher latency and reduced availability during failures.
• Eventual Consistency: Prioritises speed and scalability, tolerating short-term inconsistencies. Suited for applications like social media or caching systems where delays are acceptable.
• Kubernetes Approach: Kubernetes leans towards eventual consistency, trading strict synchronisation for better scalability and availability in federated clusters.

Quick Comparison:

Choosing the right model depends on your workload's need for accuracy, performance, and scalability. Strong consistency suits critical operations, while eventual consistency excels in high-availability, large-scale environments.

Strong Consistency in Kubernetes

How Strong Consistency Works

Strong consistency ensures that every read operation reflects the most recent write, making distributed systems behave as if they were a single server. This eliminates the risk of dealing with outdated or conflicting data.

In Kubernetes, strong consistency is achieved through its etcd datastore, which leverages the Raft consensus algorithm. When you update a resource in Kubernetes, the change is only considered successful after a quorum of etcd nodes acknowledges it.

For federated Kubernetes clusters, strong consistency requires forming a multi-cluster quorum. This process uses version numbers to synchronise states across clusters, ensuring all of them reflect the same data [4]. Writes must succeed across multiple clusters before they are finalised.

While this approach guarantees data accuracy, it comes with some notable challenges.

Drawbacks and Performance Impact

The benefits of strong consistency come with a cost - performance overhead. One of the main issues is increased latency due to the need for coordination between servers [6]. Every write operation must wait for consensus across nodes, which can slow down the system significantly.

During network disruptions, systems prioritising strong consistency may choose to become unavailable rather than serve outdated data [6]. This trade-off is encapsulated in the CAP theorem, which states that consistency, availability, and partition tolerance cannot all be achieved simultaneously [5][6].

The problem becomes even more pronounced in multi-region setups. Greater distances between nodes increase latency, making consensus slower and potentially leading to timeouts or instability [2]. This is especially challenging for federated Kubernetes clusters spread across different geographical locations.

Ed Thurman, Sr. Manager of Engineering at Hazelcast, highlights this trade-off:

Every distributed system faces a critical question: Should we prioritise consistency or availability? [7]

When to Use Strong Consistency

Strong consistency is crucial for workloads where data accuracy cannot be compromised. Examples include financial systems, inventory management, and user sessions [4][6].

Take banking and financial applications, for instance. Transactions must result in consistent account balances across all nodes immediately. A delay or inconsistency could lead to serious issues like overdrafts or incorrect balances.

Inventory management systems also rely on strong consistency to avoid overselling. If your e-commerce platform shows an item as available, the purchase must either succeed or fail instantly - there’s no room for delayed synchronisation that could result in selling more stock than you have.

Similarly, booking platforms for hotels, flights, or events require strong consistency to prevent double-bookings. Immediate confirmation ensures that once a reservation is made, it’s locked in.

In Kubernetes environments, strong consistency is particularly important to ensure that all components have an up-to-date view of the cluster state [8]. This ensures controllers and schedulers make decisions based on the latest information, avoiding conflicts and ensuring smooth operations.

Scalability tests on 5,000-node clusters have shown the benefits of consistent reads. When consistent reads from cache were enabled, the results were striking [8]:

• 30% decrease in kube-apiserver CPU usage
• 25% decrease in etcd CPU usage
• Up to 3x reduction in 99th percentile pod LIST request latency (from 5 seconds to 1.5 seconds)

The bottom line is clear: if your workload demands absolute data accuracy and cannot tolerate even brief inconsistencies, strong consistency is the way to go [4]. However, this comes with trade-offs in terms of performance and availability, especially in complex setups like federated Kubernetes clusters. Deciding whether to prioritise strong consistency requires careful planning and often, additional infrastructure investment. This sets the stage for comparing it with eventual consistency.

Eventual Consistency in Kubernetes

How Eventual Consistency Works

Unlike strong consistency, which requires immediate synchronisation across nodes, eventual consistency takes a different approach. It focuses on performance by allowing temporary differences between nodes, with the guarantee that all replicas will eventually align to the same state [9].

As Tim Downey explains:

Eventual consistency means that if no new updates are made to a system, then eventually, the system will converge. This means that eventually, all nodes will reflect the most current update and be Consistent. [11]

In Kubernetes, this model leans heavily on availability and partition tolerance, often at the expense of immediate consistency [9]. When you update a resource, the changes are distributed asynchronously across the cluster. Kubernetes controllers continuously monitor API resources, working to align the actual state with the desired state defined in configurations. This process relies on conflict resolution mechanisms to handle simultaneous updates and ensure that data across the cluster eventually matches [9].

Benefits and Drawbacks

One of the key advantages of eventual consistency is its performance and scalability. Since nodes don't need to synchronise immediately to accept writes, the system can handle more requests with lower latency.

ScyllaDB defines this concept succinctly:

Eventual consistency is a guarantee that when an update is made in a distributed database, that update will eventually be reflected in all nodes that store the data, resulting in the same response every time the data is queried. [3]

This model operates under BASE (basically-available, soft state, eventual consistency) principles, contrasting sharply with the ACID properties found in strongly consistent systems [10][12]. It ensures applications remain available even during network issues, making it resilient to infrastructure challenges.

However, the trade-off lies in temporary data inconsistencies. For a short period, different users may see different versions of the same data, which can lead to confusion if not managed carefully in application design.

While strong consistency ensures immediate access to the latest data, it can introduce delays. Eventual consistency, on the other hand, prioritises speed and low latency but accepts temporary inconsistencies. This trade-off makes it an appealing choice for specific applications [3].

When to Use Eventual Consistency

Eventual consistency is especially effective in federated Kubernetes clusters where multi-region performance is essential. It works well for applications where instant consistency isn't a priority. Examples include social media platforms, e-commerce websites, and content delivery networks [9].

Take social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook. When someone posts an update, it's not critical for everyone to see it at the exact same moment. A brief delay in propagation is acceptable, allowing the platform to manage millions of concurrent users efficiently.

E-commerce platforms also benefit from eventual consistency. For instance, if a product description is updated, it's fine if some users see the old version for a short time. The system prioritises availability and performance over immediate synchronisation.

Caching systems are another area where eventual consistency shines. Cache invalidation can happen in the background, enabling applications to serve cached content while updates are gradually applied.

Not every part of a system needs strong consistency [13]. Many use cases function perfectly well with eventual consistency, and adopting this model can significantly improve both performance and availability.

When designing for eventual consistency, avoid patterns like reading immediately after a write. Instead, rely on the value you've just written or the primary database for such scenarios [13]. This prevents users from encountering temporary inconsistencies.

In Kubernetes, eventual consistency proves invaluable for managing large-scale clusters, especially where availability is measured in multiple nines [11]. By allowing temporary desynchronisation, the model ensures that your cluster remains operational even when individual components are briefly out of sync.

Strong vs Eventual Consistency Comparison

Side-by-Side Comparison

When it comes to strong and eventual consistency models, their differences significantly impact the performance and reliability of Kubernetes clusters. Let’s break it down:

Data freshness is one of the clearest distinctions. Strong consistency ensures every read reflects the most recent write, while eventual consistency allows temporary mismatches, with the assurance that updates will synchronise across all nodes over time [3].

Latency is another key differentiator. Strong consistency involves coordination across multiple replicas for each write, which increases latency. On the other hand, eventual consistency uses asynchronous updates, resulting in much lower latency [3].

Availability highlights an important trade-off. Strong consistency may compromise availability during network issues to ensure data accuracy, potentially leaving parts of the system inaccessible. Eventual consistency, however, prioritises keeping the system functional even during partial failures [7].

Complexity also varies between the two. Strong consistency simplifies application logic by providing immediate guarantees but necessitates complex synchronisation across nodes [16]. Eventual consistency avoids this synchronisation but introduces the need for conflict resolution mechanisms, which can make scaling easier in distributed environments [15].

Here’s a quick comparison to summarise these aspects:

Resource usage is another area where these models diverge. Systems designed around eventual consistency often use significantly fewer resources - sometimes up to half compared to strong consistency setups [7]. For large-scale Kubernetes deployments, this efficiency can lead to noticeable cost savings.

These differences are central to deciding which model aligns best with your system’s needs.

Choosing the Right Model for Your Business

Selecting the right consistency model for your organisation hinges on your operational needs and business priorities.

Data sensitivity is a critical consideration. Applications like financial systems, inventory management, or online booking platforms demand strong consistency [17] because even brief inconsistencies can cause serious problems. In contrast, eventual consistency works well for less time-sensitive tasks, such as social media platforms, content delivery networks, or caching systems [16].

Performance requirements also play a big role. For applications with high user demand and throughput, the reduced latency of eventual consistency can provide the responsiveness needed to handle thousands of simultaneous users [17].

Scalability becomes increasingly important as your infrastructure grows. Eventual consistency’s ability to scale more easily [16] makes it a good fit for globally distributed systems. When deciding, it’s essential to strike a balance between meeting your business needs and avoiding unnecessary complexity [17].

If your organisation is grappling with the challenges of managing distributed systems, expert advice can make a world of difference. Hokstad Consulting offers tailored solutions for optimising DevOps and cloud infrastructure, helping teams make informed architectural choices while cutting down on costs and complexity.

Real-World Implementation in Federated Kubernetes

Kubernetes State Management and Consistency

Managing consistency in federated Kubernetes environments is no small feat, especially when configurations need to be synchronised across multiple clusters spread across various regions. Kubernetes Federation (KubeFed) tackles this challenge by using a host cluster to distribute configurations to member clusters, but this setup introduces intricate synchronisation demands [20].

Federated configurations, which include templates, cluster-specific adjustments, and policies, must be synchronised across all clusters [20]. The choice of consistency model plays a major role in how this synchronisation occurs and directly affects system performance.

With strong consistency, every member cluster must acknowledge and apply changes before they are considered complete. While this ensures accuracy, it slows down read operations, as the system has to verify all data copies across the federation before responding [19].

In contrast, eventual consistency allows clusters to converge over time without guarantees about how quickly this will happen [11]. This approach sacrifices immediate consistency for better performance and availability, but the uncertainty around the eventually timeline can be a drawback [11].

Performance in federated setups is often affected, especially given the frequent write operations typical of Kubernetes environments [24]. These challenges are central to designing reliable federated Kubernetes architectures.

Building Reliable Kubernetes Architectures

To build dependable Kubernetes architectures, architects must carefully balance latency, availability, and data integrity. In hybrid cloud environments, ensuring consistent data synchronisation across multiple clusters and providers is critical [18].

Strong consistency, while reliable, can lead to higher latency and reduced availability in distributed systems [18]. The CAP theorem highlights that distributed systems can only guarantee two out of three properties: Consistency, Availability, and Partition Tolerance [23][25]. For organisations where downtime costs exceed £240,000 per hour for 91% of companies, these trade-offs require serious consideration [21]. For instance, strong consistency might reduce availability during network disruptions, leaving parts of the system inaccessible.

On the other hand, eventual consistency prioritises faster read operations by allowing temporary data inconsistencies between clusters, which are resolved over time [18]. This model is often favoured for its responsiveness and availability but can result in short-term data anomalies during synchronisation.

Cross-region Kubernetes clusters are particularly advantageous for applications that require high availability, low latency for global users, and compliance with regulations [26]. Applications like logging or analytics platforms, which can handle eventual consistency, thrive in such setups [26]. Meanwhile, critical services like B2B platforms or large-scale e-commerce systems, which demand maximum uptime, also benefit from cross-region clusters [26].

One innovative approach to addressing these challenges involves replacing etcd with an eventually consistent datastore [22]. Using Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) allows conflicts to be resolved lazily during synchronisation, striking a balance between consistency and performance [22].

However, Kubernetes itself doesn't natively support multi-region setups, which complicates networking and security [2]. The platform isn't inherently region-aware for networking, so the behaviour of your network plugin and cloud provider's load balancer will dictate how traffic is managed across regions [2].

Expert Kubernetes Consulting Services

Considering the complexities of consistency in federated Kubernetes environments, working with experts can make a significant difference in balancing performance, availability, and cost.

Hokstad Consulting offers specialised services to optimise DevOps and cloud infrastructure, helping organisations navigate these tricky architectural decisions. Their cloud cost engineering strategies can cut expenses by 30–50%, a critical advantage when dealing with the resource demands of strong consistency models.

The specific needs of your applications play a pivotal role in determining the right approach. For instance, logging and analytics platforms can operate effectively under eventual consistency in cross-region setups [26]. However, systems like financial applications or inventory management require the stricter guarantees of strong consistency.

Expert consultants can help assess your current architecture and align it with your business goals. This includes evaluating data transfer costs between regions, as high-traffic applications can incur significant expenses [26]. They also help decide whether to centralise databases or use replication, balancing latency, consistency, and cost [26].

For organisations running latency-sensitive applications for a global audience, the situation becomes even more nuanced [26]. Consultants can implement read replicas in remote regions for read-only operations, ensuring that critical write operations adhere to the necessary consistency levels [26].

Hokstad Consulting’s No Savings, No Fee model ensures their success is tied directly to your cost reduction, making consistency optimisation a win-win. This approach not only cuts costs but also enhances system reliability and performance.

Conclusion

Main Points Summary

Deciding between strong and eventual consistency in federated Kubernetes clusters plays a critical role in shaping the behaviour of your distributed systems. Strong consistency ensures that operations follow a strict order, with every read reflecting the latest write - offering a unified view of data. On the other hand, eventual consistency allows replicas to synchronise over time, tolerating temporary differences while prioritising scalability and availability by adhering to BASE principles [1].

While ACID systems focus on maintaining strict data integrity - often at the cost of speed and availability - BASE systems leverage asynchronous replication to deliver higher throughput [1]. The right consistency model ultimately depends on your application’s needs. For example, financial systems may require the precision of strong consistency, whereas other applications might value availability over strict synchronisation [27]. These distinctions are key to crafting an effective Kubernetes strategy.

Next Steps for Your Kubernetes Strategy

To refine your Kubernetes strategy, consider the trade-offs discussed above and take these practical steps:

• Evaluate Your Application Needs: Determine how sensitive your data is, how often transactions occur, and whether temporary inconsistencies are acceptable. This will guide your choice of consistency model and help you design a suitable architecture.

• Automate and Standardise Operations: Use Infrastructure as Code tools like Terraform or Ansible to streamline cluster management. Incorporate CI/CD pipelines with platforms such as Jenkins or GitLab CI to automate application workflows. Enforce security and compliance policies with tools like Open Policy Agent (OPA) Gatekeeper [29].

• Monitor and Optimise Performance: Implement robust monitoring and logging solutions, such as Prometheus and Fluentd, to keep a close eye on your cluster’s health and performance [29].

• Plan Cluster Architecture Thoughtfully: Decide on the number of clusters, their geographic locations, and the underlying infrastructure. Keep configurations consistent - this includes Kubernetes versions, network settings, and resource quotas. Minimise cross-cluster resource deployments to reduce complexity and avoid unnecessary latency, especially when clusters are geographically dispersed [14][28].

• Test and Prepare for Upgrades: Use a staging environment that mirrors production to test upgrades and minimise downtime. Review release notes and address deprecated features to ensure compatibility before upgrading [29].

Given the complexities of running Kubernetes in production, success hinges on solid infrastructure, thorough monitoring, and well-prepared strategies for high availability and disaster recovery [29].

For expert advice on optimising your Kubernetes strategy, reach out to Hokstad Consulting.

Provision Apache Cassandra on Kubernetes using KubeDB

FAQs