Both consistency models sound similar. Both are stronger than eventual. Yet linearizability requires an ADDITIONAL guarantee that changes system design.

LinearizabilityReal-timewall clock orderTotal orderall ops linearSequential ConsistencyProgram ordereach client's ownTotal orderall ops linearDiff: real-time orderingLinear: op ordering respects wall clock even across clientsSeq: only client's own program order preserved
Linearizability requires wall-clock respect. Sequential only respects program order.
Advertisement

Linearizability

Every operation appears atomic + happens at a point between invocation + response. Real-time ordering respected.

Linearizability

Every operation appears atomic + happens at a point between invocation + response. Real-time ordering respected.

Advertisement

Sequential

Operations appear atomic + can be totally ordered such that each client's own program order is preserved. But wall-clock across clients isn't required.

Example difference

Alice writes X=1 at t=100ms. Bob reads at t=200ms. Linearizability: Bob MUST see X=1. Sequential: Bob may see stale X.

Cost

Linearizability requires coordination on writes — quorum, leader. Sequential can be achieved with cheaper protocols. Trade cost vs guarantee.

When you need linearizability

Locks, leader election, atomic ops. When you need sequential: many caches, session-scoped reads.

Linearizability = wall clock + total order. Sequential = program order + total order. Small phrase, big impact.