Distributed Real-Time Processing

  • G. Le Lann


Design issues raised by the achievement of safeness, liveness and timeliness properties for distributed real-time computing systems are first investigated. This is accomplished through an overview of problems and known solutions related to faults/intrusions, variable delays, concurrency, global physical time, process scheduling and through an examination of interdependences which exist between problems and of possibly conflicting or complementary approaches embedded in known solutions. Examples of such interdependencies and conflicting or complementary solutions are given.

These design issues are then investigated in greater detail for a particular class of processing functions, that is, interprocess communications. Merits and limitations of various algorithms utilized to achieve atomic and reliable message transfers, end-to- end flow control and time-constrained message scheduling are identified. Special attention is given to the multiaccess control problem in local area networks where finite bounded message transfer delays must be guaranteed.


Schedule Algorithm Local Area Network Interprocess Communication Token Passing External Consistency 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bernstein, P.A., and Goodman, N., “Concurrency Control in Distributed Database Systems,” ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 13, No. 2, June 1981, pp. 185–221.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chlamtac, I., and Franta, W.R., “Message Based Priority Access to Local Networks,” Computer Communication, Vol. 3, No. 2, April, 1980, pp. 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chlamtac, I., Franta, W.R., and Levin, K.D., “BRAM: The Broadcast Recognizing Access Method,” IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. Com-27, No. 8, August 1979, pp. 1183–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cristian, F. et al., “Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffusion to Byzantine Agreement,” Proc. 15th Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, June 1985, pp. 200–206.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denaro, R.P., “Navstar Global Positioning System Offers Unprecedented Navigational Accuracy,” Microwave Systems News and Communications Technology, Vol. 14, November 1984, pp. 54 – 83.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denning, D.E., “Protecting Public Keys and Signature Keys,” IEEE Comput., Vol. 16, No. 2, February 1983, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolev, D. et al., “On the Possibility and Impossibility of Achieving Clock Synchronization,” Proc. 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM, April 1985, pp. 504–511.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrsam, W.F. et al., “A Cryptographic Key Management Scheme for Implementing the Data Encryption Standard,” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1978, pp. 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eswaran, K.P. et al., “The Notions of Consistency and Predicate Locks in a Database System,” Commun. ACM, Vol. 19, November 1976, pp. 624–633.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine, M., and Tobagi, F.A., “Demand Assignment Multiple Access Schemes in Broadcast Bus Local Area Networks,” IEEE Trans. Comput., Vol. C-33, No. 12, December 1984, pp. 1130–1159.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., and Paterson, M.S., “Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process,” J. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 2, April 1985, pp. 374–382.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franta, W.R., and Bilodeau, M., “Analysis of a Prioritized CSMA Protocol Based on Staggered Delays, ” Acta Informatica, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1980, pp. 299–324.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpern, J. et al., “An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Algorithm for Clock Synchronization,” IBM Technical Report RJ-4094, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurose, J.F. et al., “Controlling Window Protocols for Time-Constrained Communication in a Multiple Access Environment,” ACM Sigcomm, Vol. 13, No. 4, October 1983, pp. 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamport, L., “Time, Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System,” Commun. ACM, Vol. 21, No. 7, July 1978, pp. 558–565.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamport, L., and Melliar-Smith, P.M., “Synchronizing Clocks in the Presence of Faults,” J. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 1985, pp. 52–78.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., and Pease, M., “The Byzantine Generals Problem,” ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1982, pp. 382–401.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laprie, J.C., “Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerance: Concepts and Terminology,” Proc. 15th Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, June 1985, pp. 2–11.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le Lann, G., “Distributed Systems - Towards a Formal Approach,” IFIP Congress, August 1977, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 155–160.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Lann, G., “A Distributed System for Real-Time Transaction Processing,” IEEE Comput., Vol. 15, No. 3, February 1981, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Lann, G., “On Real-Time Distributed Computing,” invited paper, IFIP Congress, September 1983, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 741–753.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, C.L., and Layland, J.W., “Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard Real-Time Environment,” J. ACM, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1973, pp. 46–61.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahaney, S.R., and Schneider, F.B., “Inexact Agreement: Accuracy, Precision and Graceful Degradation,” Proc. 4th ACM Sigact-Sigops Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1985.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massey, J.L., “Collision-Resolution Algorithms and Random-Access Communications,” in Multi-User Communication Systems, G., Longo, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, CISM No. 265, 1981, pp. 73–137.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menasce, D., and Muntz, R., “Locking and Deadlock Detection in Distributed Data Bases,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., Vol. SE-5, No. 3, May 1979, pp. 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Molle, M.L., “Unifications and Extensions of the Multiple Access Communications Problem,” UCLA Report No. CSD-810730, July 1981, p. 131.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pease, M., Lamport, L., and Shostak, R., “Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults,” J. ACM, Vol. 27, No. 2, April 1980, pp. 228–234.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reed, D.P., “Implementing Atomic Actions on Decentralized Data,” Proc. 8th ACM Sigops Symposium, November 1979, pp. 66–74.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., and Adleman, L., “A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems,” Commun. ACM, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 1978, pp. 120–;126.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rom, R., and Tobagi, F.A., “Message-Based Priority Functions in Local Multi- Access Communication Systems, ” Computer Networks, Vol. 5, July 1981, pp. 273–286.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomas, R.H., “A Majority Consensus Approach to Concurrency Control for Multiple Copy Databases,” ACM Trans. Database Syst., Vol. 4, No. 2, June 1979, pp. 180–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tobagi, F.A., “Carrier-Sense Multiple Access with Message-Based Priority Functions,” IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. COM-30, January 1982, pp. 185–200.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tobagi, F.A., and Rom, R., “Efficient Round-Robin and Priority Schemes for Unidirectional Broadcast Systems,” in Local Networks for Computer Communications, A. West and P. Janson, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 125–138.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Towsley, D., and Venkatesh, G., “Window Random Access Protocols for Local Area Networks,” IEEE Trans. Comput., Vol. C-31, No. 8, August 1982, pp. 715–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Le Lann
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIALe ChesnayFrance

Personalised recommendations