Another thing which makes the Raft/Paxos vs new-consensus-algorithm comparisons complicated is caching.
If your raft state machines are doing IO via some write through cache (which they often are) then having specific machines do specific jobs can increase the cache quality. I.e. your leader node can have a better cache for your write workload, whilst your follower nodes can have better caches for your read workload.
This may lead to higher throughput (yay) but then also leave you vulnerable to significant slow-downs after leader elections (boo).
What makes sense will depend on your use case, but I personally agree with the author that multiple simple raft/paxos groups scheduled across nodes by some workload aware component might be the best of both worlds.
If your raft state machines are doing IO via some write through cache (which they often are) then having specific machines do specific jobs can increase the cache quality. I.e. your leader node can have a better cache for your write workload, whilst your follower nodes can have better caches for your read workload.
This may lead to higher throughput (yay) but then also leave you vulnerable to significant slow-downs after leader elections (boo).
What makes sense will depend on your use case, but I personally agree with the author that multiple simple raft/paxos groups scheduled across nodes by some workload aware component might be the best of both worlds.