Raft and Paxos solve the same problem. What is the main reason Raft became the common choice in new systems (etcd, Consul, CockroachDB)?

Options

• ✗ Raft tolerates more failures with the same number of nodes
• ✗ Raft needs no majority to commit
• ✓ Raft specifies a whole replicated log, with a strong leader, elections and membership changes, and is easier to understand Correct
• ✗ Raft also tolerates nodes that lie (Byzantine faults)

Why

Both need a majority and survive f crashed nodes out of 2f + 1; neither handles malicious nodes. Basic Paxos agrees on one value, and the multi-value version leaves many practical details open, so Paxos implementations differed. Raft was designed to be understandable.

Review this in your daily deck → All cards in Coordination