Event-Safe Agent-to-Cloud Fabrics for Transactionally Consistent Autonomous Enterprise Systems
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The more and more autonomous software agents perform business operations against the shared cloud state, the more duplicated, misordered and irrecoverable effects are experienced by enterprises in the event of failure and retry. A systematic review of 26 peer-reviewed sources over 46 years was carried out to see how transactional consistency can be ensured from the agent to the cloud. A rubric for eight coordination mechanisms was developed with six criteria, and sources were coded into five domains. The synthesis demonstrates that crash tolerance is 2f + 1 replicas, Byzantine tolerance is 3f + 1, and that update-anywhere replication is N^3 times as many conflicts, where N is the number of nodes, or that deterministic sequencing has been reported at about 500,000 transactions per second. A composite event-safe fabric, by combining a durable intent log, per domain sequencing, idempotent effects and sagas, as well as convergent agent memory, achieved a composite score of 2.45, compared to a mean of 1.94 for single mechanisms. The ranking assumes a certain level of weight for the effect safety, and the conclusions are based on ordinal coding instead of measured agent workloads. Architectural guidelines for designing agent enabled enterprise platforms and directions for empirical research are provided.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, “Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115–152, 1995, doi: 10.1017/S0269888900008122.
[2] L. Wang et al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,” Front. Comput. Sci., vol. 18, no. 6, p. 186345, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1.
[3] J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,” in Proceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology, 2023, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1145/3586183.3606763.
[4] M. Armbrust et al., “A view of cloud computing,” Commun. ACM, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 50–58, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1145/1721654.1721672.
[5] B. Burns, B. Grant, D. Oppenheimer, E. Brewer, and J. Wilkes, “Borg, Omega, and Kubernetes: Lessons learned from three container-management systems over a decade,” Queue, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 70–93, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1145/2898442.2898444.
[6] F. Chang et al., “Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2008, doi: 10.1145/1365815.1365816.
[7] T. Akidau et al., “The dataflow model: a practical approach to balancing correctness, latency, and cost in massive-scale, unbounded, out-of-order data processing,” Proc. VLDB Endow., vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1792–1803, 2015, doi: 10.14778/2824032.2824076.
[8] J. Dean and S. Ghemawat, “MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters,” Commun. ACM, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 2008, doi: 10.1145/1327452.1327492.
[9] L. Lamport, “Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system,” Commun. ACM, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 558–565, 1978, doi: 10.1145/359545.359563.
[10] K. M. Chandy and L. Lamport, “Distributed snapshots: Determining global states of distributed systems,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 63–75, 1985, doi: 10.1145/214451.214456.
[11] M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson, “Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process,” J. ACM, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 374–382, 1985, doi: 10.1145/3149.214121.
[12] L. Lamport, “The part-time parliament,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 133–169, 1998, doi: 10.1145/279227.279229.
[13] M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 398–461, Nov. 2002, doi: 10.1145/571637.571640.
[14] M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing, “Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects,” ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 463–492, 1990, doi: 10.1145/78969.78972.
[15] H. Berenson, P. Bernstein, J. Gray, J. Melton, E. O’Neil, and P. O’Neil, “A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels,” ACM SIGMOD Rec., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 1995, doi: 10.1145/568271.223785.
[16] P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman, “Concurrency Control in Distributed Database Systems,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 185–221, 1981, doi: 10.1145/356842.356846.
[17] C. Mohan, D. Haderle, B. Lindsay, H. Pirahesh, and P. Schwarz, “ARIES: a transaction recovery method supporting fine-granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging,” ACM Trans. Database Syst., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 94–162, 1992, doi: 10.1145/128765.128770.
[18] H. Garcia-Molina and K. Salem, “Sagas,” SIGMOD Rec., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 249–259, 1987, doi: 10.1145/38714.38742.
[19] A. Thomson, T. Diamond, S.-C. Weng, K. Ren, P. Shao, and D. J. Abadi, “Calvin: fast distributed transactions for partitioned database systems,” in Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, in SIGMOD ’12. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2012, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1145/2213836.2213838.
[20] J. Gray, P. Helland, P. O’Neil, and D. Shasha, “The dangers of replication and a solution,” in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, in SIGMOD ’96. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1996, pp. 173–182. doi: 10.1145/233269.233330.
[21] S. Gilbert and N. Lynch, “Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services,” Acm Sigact News, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 51–59, 2002, doi: 10.1145/564585.564601.
[22] E. Brewer, “CAP twelve years later: How the ‘rules’ have changed,” Computer (Long. Beach. Calif)., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 23–29, 2012, doi: 10.1109/MC.2012.37.
[23] W. Vogels, “Eventually consistent,” Commun. ACM, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 40–44, 2009, doi: 10.1145/1435417.1435432.
[24] G. DeCandia et al., “Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store,” ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 205–220, 2007, doi: 10.1145/1294261.1294281.
[25] P. Bailis, A. Davidson, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica, “Highly available transactions: virtues and limitations,” Proc. VLDB Endow., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 181–192, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.14778/2732232.2732237.
[26] M. Shapiro, N. Preguiça, C. Baquero, and M. Zawirski, “Conflict-Free Replicated Data Types BT - Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems,” in Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems, X. Défago, F. Petit, and V. Villain, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 386–400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24550-3_29.