Advertisement

Condition-Based Protocols for Set Agreement Problems

  • A. Mostéfaoui
  • S. Rajsbaum
  • M. Raynal
  • M. Roy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2508)

Abstract

A condition C is a set of input vectors to a problem. A class of conditions that allow to solve k-set agreement in spite of f crashes in an asynchronous system is identified. A k-set agreement protocol that is always safe is described: it is guaranteed to terminate when the input vector belongs to C and it always decides on at most k different values, even if the input vector does not belong to C. While there are simple solutions when f < k, it is known that the k-set agreement problem has no solution when fk. Thus, the paper identifies classes of conditions that allow to solve this problem even when fk. The paper gives evidence that these are the only conditions that allow to solve set agreement, by proving the wait-free case. Two natural concrete conditions that belong to such a class are described. Finally, a more efficient k-set agreement protocol with only linear complexity (does not use snapshots), for any C that allows to solve consensus, when kf/(n - f) + 1 is presented. This shows how to trade fault-tolerance for agreement precision using the condition based approach.

Keywords

Input Vector Shared Memory Failure Detector Impossibility Result Consensus Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Attiya H. and Avidor Z., Wait-Free n-Consensus When Inputs are Restricted. Proc. 16th Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC’02), These proceedings.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attiya H. and Rachman O., Atomic Snapshots in O(n log n) Operations. SIAM Journal on Computing, 27(2):319–340, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attiya H. and Rajsbaum S., The Combinatorial Structure of Wait-free Solvable Tasks. To appear in SIAM Journal on Computing, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berman P. and Garay J., Adaptability and the Usefulness of Hints. 6th European Symposium on Algorithms, Springer-Verlag LNCS #1461, pp. 271–282, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biran O., Moran S. and Zaks S., A Combinatorial Characterization of the Distributed 1-Solvable Tasks. Journal of Algorithms, 11:420–440, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borowsky E. and Gafni E., Generalized FLP Impossibility Results for t-Resilient Asynchronous Computations. Proc. 25th ACM STOC, pp. 91–100, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandra T. and Toueg S., Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems. Journal of the ACM, 43(2):225–267, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaudhuri S., More Choices Allow More Faults: Set Consensus Problems in Totally Asynchronous Systems. Information and Computation, 105:132–158, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolev D., Dwork C. and Stockmeyer L., On the Minimal Synchronism Needed for Distributed Consensus. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):77–97, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwork C., Lynch N. and Stockmeyer L., Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 35(2):288–323, 1988.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer M.J., Lynch N. and Paterson M.S., Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374–382, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gafni E. and Koutsoupias E., Three-Processor Tasks Are Undecidable. SIAM Journal of Computing, 28(3):970–983, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herlihy M.P. and Rajsbaum S., On the Decidability of Distributed Decision Tasks. Proc. 29th ACM STOC, pp. 589–598, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herlihy M. and Rajsbaum S., New Perspectives in Distributed Computing. Invited Talk, Proc. 24th Int. Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’99), Springer-Verlag LNCS #1672, pp. 170–186, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herlihy M. and Rajsbaum S., Algebraic Spans. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 10(4):549–573, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herlihy M., Rajsbaum S. and Tuttle M., Synchronous Round Operators, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herlihy M. and Shavit N., The Asynchronous Computability Theorem for t- Resilient Tasks. Proc. 25th ACM STOC, CA, pp. 111–120, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herlihy M.P. and Wing J.M., Linearizability: a Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects. A CM TOPLAS, 12(3):463–492, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keidar I. and Rajsbaum S., On the Cost of Fault-Tolerant Consensus When There Are No Faults — A Tutorial, SIGACT News, DC Column, 32(2):45–63, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mostéfaoui A., Rajsbaum S. and Raynal M., Conditions on Input Vectors for Consensus Solvability in Asynchronous Distributed Systems. Proc. 33rd ACM STOC, pp. 153–162, 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mostéfaoui A., Rajsbaum S., Raynal M. and Roy M., A Hierarchy of Conditions for Consensus Solvability. Proc. PODC’01, pp. 151–160, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mostéfaoui A., Rajsbaum S., Raynal M. and Roy M., Condition-Based Protocols for Set Agreement Problems. Research Reports #1464, IRISA, University of Rennes, France, 2002. http://www.irisa.fr/bibli/publi/pi/2002/1464/1464.html.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mostefaoui A. and Raynal M., k-Set Agreement with Limited Accuracy Failure Detectors. Proc. PODC’99, Portland (OR), pp. 143–152, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mostefaoui A. and Raynal M., Randomized k-Set Agreement. Proc. 13th th ACM Symp. on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA’01), pp. 291–297, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taubenfeld G., Katz S. and Moran S., Impossibility Results in the Presence of Multiple Faulty Processes. Information and Computation, 113(2):173–198, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taubenfeld G. and Moran S., Possibility and Impossibility Results in a Shared Memory Environment. Acta Informatica, 35:1–20, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saks M. and Zaharoglou F., Wait-Free k-Set Agreement is Impossible: the Topology of Public Knowledge. Proc. 25th ACM STOC, pp. 101–110, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Mostéfaoui
    • 1
  • S. Rajsbaum
    • 2
  • M. Raynal
    • 1
  • M. Roy
    • 1
  1. 1.IRISAUniversité de RennesRennesFrance
  2. 2.HP Research LabOne Cambridge CenterCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations