What is the difference between linearizability and serializability?
The central distinction between the two is that serializability is a global property; a property of an entire history of operations/transactions. Linearizability is a local property; a property of a single operation/transaction. Another distinction is that linearizability includes a notion of real-time, which serializability does not: the linearization point of an operation must lie between its invocation and response times. (See Tim Harris: Transactional Memory, 2ed. See Herlihy's slides from The Art of Multiprocessor Programming, the section on Linearizability, which are available here, for some examples and proofs.
Both properties are aimed at the same goal: sequential consistency. From Herlihy's paper:
Much work on databases and distributed systems uses serializability as the basic correctness condition for concurrent computations. In this model, a transaction is a thread of control that applies a finite sequence of primitive operations to a set of objects shared with other transactions. A history is serializable if it is equivalent to one in which transactions appear to execute sequentially, i.e., without interleaving. A (partial) precedence order can be defined on non-overlapping pairs of transactions in the obvious way. A history is strictly serializable if the transactions’ order in the sequential history is compatible with their precedence order...
...Linearizability can be viewed as a special case of strict serializability where transactions are restricted to consist of a single operation applied to a single object. Nevertheless, this single-operation restriction has far-reaching practical and formal consequences, giving linearizable computations a different flavor from their serializable counterparts. An immediate practical consequence is that concurrency control mechanisms appropriate for serializability are typically inappropriate for linearizability because they introduce unnecessary overhead and place unnecessary restrictions on concurrency.
References:
Harris, Tim, James Larus, and Ravi Rajwar: Transactional Memory, 2ed. Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture. Morgn & Claypool, 2010. ISBN 9781608452354. URL: http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00272ED1V01Y201006CAC011?journalCode=cac
Herlihy, Maurice and Jeanette Wing: Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. and Sys. Vol. 12, No. 3, July 1990, Pages 463-492. URL http://www.cs.brown.edu/~mph/HerlihyW90/p463-herlihy.pdf
Papadimitriou, Christos: The Serializability of Concurrent Database Updates. Journal of the ACM Vol 26. No 4. October 1979, pp 631-653. URL http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-210.pdf
Herlihy, Maurice and Nir Shavit: The Art of Multiprocessor Programming. Elsevier, 2008. ISBN 978-0-12-370591-4. URL: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/714091/description#description PPT slides on linearizability are here: http://pub.ist.ac.at/courses/ppc10/slides/Linearizability.pptx
Attiya, Hagit and Jennifer Welch: Sequential Consistency versus Linearizability. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems Vol. 12, No. 2, May 1994, Pages 91-122. URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.4969&rep=rep1&type=pdf
More Details:
If you really care about this, read the paper that introduced the definitions. For linearizability, that's Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects, Herlihy and Wing. It's dense, but worth the attention. Note that in the software transactional memory community, it's an open question whether linearizability is the right goal / property to aim for.
Serializability is about the outcome of a collection of operations/the "system" being expressible as a specific ordering ("as if execution took place in a specific order...") of all the operations. Linearizability is a property of a single subset of operations in the system... an operation/set of operations are linearizable if they appear to the other operations as if they occurred at a specific instant in (logical) time with respect to the others. The canonical paper here is Papadimitriou, The Serializability of Concurrent Database Updates.
Think "atomic operation" when you're thinking about "linearizable." A (set of) operations are linearizable when they (appear to) occur atomically with respect to other parts of the system. A common formulation is "provide the illusion that each operation takes effect instantaneously between its invocation and response." The formulation of linearizability is due to Herlihy, which emphasizes that this is a local property, vs. other kinds of sequential consistency properties like "serializability" which are global.
There's a great explanation by Peter Bailis here:
- Linearizability versus Serializability
"In plain English, under linearizability, writes should appear to be instantaneous. Imprecisely, once a write completes, all later reads (where “later” is defined by wall-clock start time) should return the value of that write or the value of a later write. Once a read returns a particular value, all later reads should return that value or the value of a later write."
"Serializability is a guarantee about transactions, or groups of one or more operations over one or more objects. It guarantees that the execution of a set of transactions (usually containing read and write operations) over multiple items is equivalent to some serial execution (total ordering) of the transactions."