text: Bizur is a consensus algorithm exposing a key-value interface. It is used by a distributed file-system that scales to 100s of servers, delivering millions of IOPS, both data and metadata, with consistent low-latency. Bizur is aimed for services that require strongly consistent state, but do not require a distributed log; for example, a distributed lock manager or a distributed service locator. By avoiding a distributed log scheme, Bizur outperforms distributed log based consensus algorithms, producing more IOPS and guaranteeing lower latencies during normal operation and especially during failures. Paxos-like algorithms (e.g., Zab and Raft) which are used by existing distributed file-systems, can have artificial contention points due to their dependence on a distributed log. The distributed log is needed when replicating a general service, but when the desired service is key-value based, the contention points created by the distributed log can be avoided. Bizur does exactly that, by reaching consensus independently on independent keys. This independence allows Bizur to handle failures more efficiently and to scale much better than other consensus algorithms, allowing the file-system that utilizes Bizur to scale with it.
  @cite_7: Chain replication is a new approach to coordinating clusters of fail-stop storage servers. The approach is intended for supporting large-scale storage services that exhibit high throughput and availability without sacrificing strong consistency guarantees. Besides outlining the chain replication protocols themselves, simulation experiments explore the performance characteristics of a prototype implementation. Throughput, availability, and several object-placement strategies (including schemes based on distributed hash table routing) are discussed.
summary: Another system providing consistent key-value like behavior appears in @cite_7 , which doesn't support but it seems that it can be added easily. However, @cite_7 assumes FIFO links, which incur false dependencies between operations. It might be possible to remove this assumption, but it would probably make the failure handling much more complex.