Advertisement

Detection of Orthogonal Interval Relations

  • Punit Chandra
  • Ajay D. Kshemkalyani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2552)

Abstract

The complete set ℜ of orthogonal temporal interactions between pairs of intervals, formulated by Kshemkalyani, allows the detailed specification of the manner in which intervals can be related to one another in a distributed execution. This paper presents a distributed algorithm to detect whether pre-specified interaction types between intervals at different processes hold. Specifically, for each pair of processes i and j, given a relation ri,j from the set of orthogonal relations ℜ, this paper presents a distributed (on-line) algorithm to determine the intervals, if they exist, one from each process, such that each relation ri,j is satisfied for that (i, j) process pair. The algorithm uses O(n min(np, 4mn)) messages of size O(n) each, where n is the number of processes, m is the maximum number of messages sent by any process, and p is the maximum number of intervals at any process. The average time complexity per process is O(min(np, 4mn)), and the total space complexity across all the processes is min(4pn2. 2np, 10mn2).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    P. Chandra, A.D. Kshemkalyani, Detection of orthogonal interval relations, Tech. Report UIC-ECE-02-06, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, May 2002. 327, 328, 331Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K.M. Chandy, L. Lamport, Distributed snapshots: Determining global states of distributed systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 3(1): 63–75, 1985. 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Q. Du, V. Faber, M. Gunzburger, Centroidal Voronoi tessellations: applications and algorithms, SIAM Review, 41(4): 637–676, 1999. 324zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. J. Fidge, Timestamps in message-passing systems that preserve partial ordering, Australian Computer Science Communications, 10(1): 56–66, February 1988. 325, 328Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A.D. Kshemkalyani, Temporal interactions of intervals in distributed systems, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 52(2): 287–298, April 1996. 323, 324, 325, 326, 330CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A.D. Kshemkalyani, A framework for viewing atomic events in distributed computations, Theoretical Computer Science, 196(1-2), 45–70, April 1998. 324zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    A.D. Kshemkalyani, A fine-grained modality classification for global predicates, Tech. Report UIC-EECS-00-10, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 2000. 325, 326Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Lamport, Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system, Communications of the ACM, 558–565, 21(7), July 1978. 324zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. Lamport, On interprocess communication, Part I: Basic formalism; Part II: Algorithms, Distributed Computing, 1:77–85 and 1:86-101, 1986. 324zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    F. Mattern, Virtual time and global states of distributed systems, Parallel and Distributed Algorithms, North-Holland, 215–226, 1989. 325, 328Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Punit Chandra
    • 1
  • Ajay D. Kshemkalyani
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniv. of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations