The article calls on someone(?) to Jepsen test Redlock, which is a good idea, but I think that the author(s) of such systems should release their own Jepsen test suite along with the software they&#x27;re purporting to be safe (as others have done [1][2][3]). I would suspect that operations on Redlock, when subjected to nemesis that partition, kill and skew-clocks on various nodes, would not be found linearizable.<p>In general, I don&#x27;t understand why one would build a system that attempts to approximate consensus without just using one of the proven consensus algorithms. Redlock is not the only one here, there are other systems that do this as well.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;atomix&#x2F;atomix-jepsen" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;atomix&#x2F;atomix-jepsen</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datastax.com&#x2F;dev&#x2F;blog&#x2F;testing-apache-cassandra-with-jepsen" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datastax.com&#x2F;dev&#x2F;blog&#x2F;testing-apache-cassandra-w...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundationdb.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;call-me-maybe-foundationdb-vs-jepsen" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foundationdb.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;call-me-maybe-foundationdb-vs-...</a>