Advertisement

Three non conventional paradigms of parallel computation

  • Fabrizio Luccio
  • Linda Pagli
  • Geppino Pucci
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 678)

Abstract

We consider three paradigms of computation where the benefits of a parallel solution are greater than usual. Paradigm 1 works on a timevarying input data set, whose size increases with time. In paradigm 2 the data set is fixed, but the processors may fail at any time with a given constant probability. In paradigm 3, the execution of a single operation may require more than one processor, for security or reliability reasons. We discuss the organization of PRAM algorithms for these paradigms, and prove new bounds on parallel speed-up.

Keywords

Parallel Algorithm Single Operation Constant Probability Parallel Solution Reliability Reason 
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]
    A. Aggarwal and A.K. Chandra. Communication Complexity of PRAMs. Proc. 15th Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (1988) 1–18.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S.G. Akl, M. Cosnard and A.G. Ferreira. Data-movement-intensive problems: two folk theorems in parallel computation revisited. Theoretical Computer Science 95 (1992) 323–337.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability. Freeman, San Francisco, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P.C. Kanellakis and A.A. Shvartsman. Efficient parallel algorithms can be made robust. In Proc. 8th Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (1989) 211–222.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R.M. Karp and V. Ramachandran A survey of parallel algorithms for shared memory machines. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science North Holland, New York NY (1990) 869–941.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Z.M. Kedem, K.V. Palem and P.G. Spirakis. Efficient robust parallel computations. In Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (1990) 590–599.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. Luccio and L. Pagli. The p-shovelers problem. (Computing with time-varying data). SIGACT News 23, 2 (1992) 72–75Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Martel, R. Subramonian, A. Park. Asynchronous PRAMs are (almost) as good as synchronous prams. In Proc. 31st Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (1990) 590–599.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. Paul. On line simulation of k+1 tapes by k tapes requires nonlinear time. Information and Control 53 (1982) 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    K.S. Trivedi. Probability and statistics with reliability, queueing, and computer science applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ (1982).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    U. Vishkin. Can parallel algorithms enhance serial implementation?. SIGACT News 22, 4 (1991) 63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Luccio
    • 1
  • Linda Pagli
    • 1
  • Geppino Pucci
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformaticaUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations