Skip to main content

Comparing the Atomic Commitment and Consensus Problems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Future Directions in Distributed Computing

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2584))

Abstract

Reaching agreement in a distributed system is a fundamental issue of both theoretical and practical importance. Consensus and non-blocking atomic commitment are two wellknown versions of this paradigm. The Consensus problem considers a fixed collection of processors each of which has an initial value drawn from some domain V , and processors must eventually decide on the same value1; moreover, the decision value must be the initial value of some processor. The non-blocking atomic commitment (NB-AC) problem arises in distributed database systems to ensure the consistent termination of transactions. Each process that participates in the processing of a database transaction arrives at an initial opinion (vote) about whether to commit the transaction or abort it. Processes must eventually reach a common decision (commit or abort). The decision to commit may be reached only if all processes initially vote to commit. In this case, “commit” must be reached if there is no failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Ben-Or, M. (1983): Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. PODC, 27–30

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chandra, T. D., Hadzilacos, V, Toueg, S. (1996): The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. JACM 43(4), 685–722

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandra, T. D., Toueg, S. (1996): Unreliable failure detectors for asynchronous systems. JACM. 43(2), 225–267

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Charron-Bost, B. (2001): Agreement problems in fault-tolerant distributed systems. (SOFSEM, LNCS, vol. 2234), 10–32

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Charron-Bost, B. (2001): The weakest failure detector for solving atomic commitment. Unpublished Notes

    Google Scholar 

  6. Charron-Bost, B., Le Fessant, F. (2002):Validity conditions in agreement problems and time complexity. Tech. Rep. RR-4526, INRIA-Rocquencourt

    Google Scholar 

  7. Charron-Bost, B., Schiper, A. (2000): Uniform consensus is harder than consensus. Tech. Rep. DSC/2000/028, EPFL

    Google Scholar 

  8. Charron-Bost, B., Toueg, S. (2001): Comparing the atomic commitment and consensus problems. Unpublished Notes

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dolev, D., Reischuk, R., Strong, H. R. (1990): Early stopping in Byzantine agreement. JACM 37(4), 720–741

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dwork, C., Lynch, N. A., Stockmeyer, L. (1988): Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. JACM 35(2), 288–323

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., Paterson, M. S. (1985): Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. JACM 32(2), 374–382

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gray, J. (1987): A comparison of the byzantine agreement problem and the transaction commit problem. (Fault Tolerant Distributed Computing, LNCS vol. 448), 10–17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Guerraoui, R. (1995): Revisiting the relationship between non-blocking atomic commitment and consensus. (WDAG, LNCS vol. 972), 87–100

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guerraoui, R. (2002): Non-blocking atomic commitment in asynchronous systems with failure detectors. Distributed Computing 15(1)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guerraoui, R., Kouznetsov, P. (2002): On the weakest failure detector for non-blocking atomic commit. International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hadzilacos, V. (1987): On the relationship between the atomic commitment and consensus problems. (Fault Tolerant Distributed Computing, LNCS vol. 448), 201–208

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Keidar, I., Rajsbaum, S. (2002):A simple proof of the uniform consensus synchronous lower bound. IPL, To appear

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lamport, L. (2000): Lower bounds on consensus. Unpublished manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  19. Merritt, M. J (1985): Unpublished Notes

    Google Scholar 

  20. Skeen, D. (1982): Nonblocking commit protocols. ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, 133–147

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Charron-Bost, B. (2003). Comparing the Atomic Commitment and Consensus Problems. In: Schiper, A., Shvartsman, A.A., Weatherspoon, H., Zhao, B.Y. (eds) Future Directions in Distributed Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2584. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-37795-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-37795-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00912-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37795-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics