Skip to main content

Generalized agreement between concurrent fail-stop processes

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Distributed Algorithms (WDAG 1993)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 725))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 127 Accesses

Abstract

For a system of concurrent processes that can fail by stopping, we study a generalization of the traditional binary agreement problem having more than two possible input values. We provide bounds on the number of possible inputs for which agreement is possible in a system of n concurrent processes that communicate using read-modify-write operations on m shared memory cells of sizes r 1,...,r m. Let V be the set of input values. We present an agreement protocol for two processes with ¦V¦≤(Π m−1j=1 r j)(r m−1), where r m=maxj,{r j}. For m=1 and m=2, we prove that this upper bound on ¦V¦ is the best possible.

A protocol for n processes is fully resilient if it tolerates up to n−1 failures; a fully resilient protocol is wait-free, because no process needs to wait for any other. In a write-once protocol, each memory cell changes value at most once during each execution of the protocol. We present a fully resilient write-once agreement protocol for ¦V¦≤ mj=1 (r j−1). We show that no fully resilient write-once agreement protocol exists when ¦V¦> mj=1 (r j−1) and n≥m.

Supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CCR-8922008.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. K. Abrahamson, On achieving consensus using a shared memory, Proc. 7th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Toronto, pp. 291–302, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Abrahamson and A. Karkare, Efficient algorithms for shared memory consensus, Proc. 29th Ann. Allerton Conf. on Communication, Control, and Computing, Monticello, Ill., pp. 642–651, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Aspnes, Time-and space-efficient randomized consensus, Proc. 9th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Quebec City, pp. 325–331, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Aspnes and M. Herlihy, Fast randomized consensus using shared memory, J. Algorithms, vol. 11, pp. 441–461, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Borowski and E. Gafni, Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations, Proc. 25th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, San Diego, Calif., pp. 91–100, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Chaudhuri, Agreement is harder than consensus: set consensus problems in totally asynchronous systems, Proc. 9th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Quebec City, pp. 311–324, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. F. Fich, M. Herlihy, and N. Shavit, On the complexity of randomized synchronization, Proc. 12th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Ithaca, N.Y., to appear, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson, Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process, J. ACM, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 374–382, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Herlihy, Wait-free synchronization, ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 124–149, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Herlihy and N. Shavit, The asynchronous computability theorem for t-resilient tasks, Proc. 25th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, San Diego, Calif., pp. 111–120, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. C. Loui and H. H. Abu-Amara, Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes, In Advances in Computing Research, ed. F. P. Preparata, vol. 4, pp. 168–183, JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. C. Loui, T. A. Matsushita, and D. B. West, Election in a complete network with a sense of direction, Information Processing Letters, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 185–187, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Merritt and G. Taubenfeld, Knowledge in shared memory systems, Proc. 10th Ann. ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, Montreal, pp. 189–200, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Saks and F. Zaharoglou, Wait-free k-set agreement is impossible: the topology of public knowledge, Proc. 25th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, San Diego, Calif., pp. 101–110, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. T. K. Srikanth and S. Toueg, Optimal clock synchronization, J. ACM, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 626–645, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Turpin and B. Coan, Extending binary Byzantine agreement to multivalued Byzantine agreement, Inform. Process. Lett., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 73–76, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

André Schiper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Burns, J.E., Cruz, R.I., Loui, M.C. (1993). Generalized agreement between concurrent fail-stop processes. In: Schiper, A. (eds) Distributed Algorithms. WDAG 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 725. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57271-6_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57271-6_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-57271-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48029-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics