A Step Towards a New Generation of Group Communication Systems

  • Sergio Mena
  • André Schiper
  • Pawel Wojciechowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2672)


In this paper, we propose a new architecture for group communication middleware. Current group communication systems share some common features, despite the big differences that exist among them. We first point out these common features by describing the most representative group communication architectures implemented over the last 15 years. Then we show the features of our new architecture, which provide several advantages over the existing architectures: (1) it is less complex, (2) it defines a set of group communication abstractions that is more consistent than the abstractions usually provided, and (3) it can be made more responsive in case of failures.


Group Membership Group Communication Monitoring Component Reliable Broadcast Traditional Architecture 
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.


  1. 1.
    M. K. Aguilera, C. Delporte-Gallet, H. Fauconnier, and S. Toueg. Thrifty generic broadcast. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC’2000), October 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Amir, L.E. Moser, P.M. Melliar-Smith, D.A. Agarwal, and P. Ciarfella. The Totem Single-Ring Ordering and Membership Protocol. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, 13(4): 311–342, November 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli, L. Giachini, and M. Baker. Relacs: A communication infrastructure for constructing reliable applications in large-scale distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 28th Hawaii Interntional Conference on System Sciences, volume II, pages 612–621, Jan 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bela Ban. JavaGroups 2.0 User’s Guide, Nov 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Distributed Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Birman. The Process Group Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. Comm. ACM, 36(12):37–53, December 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Birman and T. Joseph. Reliable Communication in the Presence of Failures. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, 5(1):47–76, February 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Birman, A. Schiper, and P. Stephenson. Lightweight Causal and Atomic Group Multicast. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, 9(3): 272–314, August 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. D. Chandra and S. Toueg. Unreliable Failure Detectors for Asynchronous Systems. In proc. 10th annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 325–340, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.D. Chandra and S. Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of ACM, 43(2):225–267, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. M. Chang and N. Maxemchuck. Reliable Broadcast Protocols. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, 2(3): 251–273, August 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Charron-Bost, X. Défago, and A. Schiper. Broadcasting messages in fault-tolerant distributed systems: the benefit of handling input-triggered and output-triggered suspicions differently. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), pages 244–249, Osaka, Japan, October 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregory Chockler, Idit Keidar, and Roman Vitenberg. Group communication specifications: A comprehensive study. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(4):1–43, December2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Danny Dolev and Dalia Malki. The Transis approach to high availability cluster communication. Communications of the ACM, 39(4):64–70, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richard Ekwall, Péter Urbán, and André Schiper. Robust TCP connections for fault tolerant computing. In Proc. 9th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), pages 501–508, Chung-li, Taiwan, December 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paul D. Ezhilchelvan, Raimundo A. Macedo, and Santosh K. Shrivastava. Newtop: A fault-tolerant group communication protocol. In International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 296–306, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, and M. Paterson. Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of ACM, 32: 374–382, April 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.J. Fischer. The consensus problem in unreliable distributed systems (A brief survey). In Proc. Int. Conf. on Foundations of Computations Theory, pages 127–140, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Friedman and R. van Renesse. Strong and Weak Virual Synchrony in Horus. In 15th IEEE Symp. on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS-15), pages 140–149, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, September 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Guerraoui and A. Schiper. Software-Based Replication for Fault Tolerance. IEEE Computer, 30(4): 68–74, April 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mark Hayden. The Ensemble system. Technical Report TR98-1662, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, January 8, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jun He, Matti A. Hiltunen, Mohan Rajagopalan, and Richard D. Schlichting. Providing transparent qos customization for CORBA objects, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matti A. Hiltunen and Richard D. Schlichting. A configurable membership service. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 47(5):573–586, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Sussman I. Keidar and K. Marzullo. Optimistic virtual synchrony. In 19th IEEE Symp. on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS-19), pages 42–51, Nurnberg, Germany, October 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Malloth. Conception and Implementation of a Toolkit for Building Fault-Tolerant Distributed Applications in Large Scale Networks. PhD thesis, Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL), 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hugo Miranda, Alexandre Pinto, and Luís Rodrigues. Appia, a flexible protocol kernel supporting multiple coordinated channels. In Proceedings of The 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS-21), pages 707–710, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, April 16-19 2001. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Todd Montgomery. Design, implementation, and verification of the reliable multicast protocol. Master’s thesis, West Virginia University, Dec 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Pedone and A. Schiper. Handling Message Semantics with Generic Broadcast Protocols. Distributed Computing. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Pedone and A. Schiper. Generic Broadcast. In 13th. Intl. Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC’99). Springer Verlag, LNCS 1693, September 1999. Extended version to appear in ACM Distributed Computing, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    F. Pedone and A. Schiper. Handling Message Semanticas with Generic Broadcast Protocols. Distributed Computing, 15(2):97–107, april 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robbert Van Renesse, Kenneth P. Birman, Bradford B. Glade, Katie Guo, Mark Hayden, Takako Hickey, Dalia Malki, Alex Vaysburd, and Werner Vogels. Horus: A flexible group communications system. Technical Report TR95-1500, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, Apr 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    André Schiper. Dynamic Group Communication. Technical Report, EPFL, March 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    F.B. Schneider. Replication Management using the State-Machine Approach. In Sape Mullender, editor, Distributed Systems, pages 169–197. ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brian Whetten, Todd Montgomery, and Simon M. Kaplan. A high performance totally ordered multicast protocol. In Dagstuhl Seminar on Distributed Systems, pages 33–57, 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gary T. Wong, Matti A. Hiltunen, and Richard D. Schlichting. A configurable and extensible transport protocol. In INFOCOM’01, April 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Mena
    • 1
  • André Schiper
    • 1
  • Pawel Wojciechowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)School of Computer and Communication SciencesLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations