Abstract
Linearizability, a widely-accepted correctness property for shared objects, is grounded in classical physics. Its definition assumes a total temporal order over invocation and response events, which is tantamount to assuming the existence of a global clock that determines the time of each event. By contrast, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, there can be no global clock: time itself is relative. For example, given two events A and B, one observer may perceive A occurring before B, another may perceive B occurring before A, and yet another may perceive A and B occurring simultaneously,with respect to local time.
Here, we generalize linearizability for relativistic distributed systems using techniques that do not rely on a global clock. Our novel correctness property, called relativistic linearizability, is instead defined in terms of causality. However, in contrast to standard “causal consistency,” our interpretation defines relativistic linearizability in a manner that retains the important locality property of linearizability. That is, a collection of shared objects behaves in a relativistically linearizable way if and only if each object individually behaves in a relativistically linearizable way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Mars One, http://www.mars-one.com/
Ahamad, M., Neiger, G., Burns, J.E., Kohli, P., Hutto, P.W.: Causal memory: Definitions, implementation, and programming. Distr. Comp. 9(1), 37–49 (1995)
Attiya, H., Bar-Noy, A., Dolev, D.: Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. J. ACM 42(1), 124–142 (1995)
Bailis, P., Fekete, A., Ghodsi, A., Hellerstein, J.M., Stoica, I.: The potential dangers of causal consistency and an explicit solution. In: Proc. of the 5th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (2012)
Brewer, E.A.: Towards robust distributed systems (Invited Talk). In: Proc. of the 19th Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (2000)
Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Yang, H.: Understanding eventual consistency. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2013-39 (2013)
De Candia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., Vogels, W.: Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proc. of the 21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (2007)
Einstein, A.: The Meaning of Relativity, 6th edn. Taylor & Francis (2003)
Friedman, R., Vitenberg, R., Chockler, G.: On the composability of consistency conditions. Inf. Process. Lett. 86(4), 169–176 (2003)
Golab, W., Hadzilacos, V., Hendler, D., Woelfel, P.: RMR-efficient implementations of comparison primitives using read and write operations. Distr. Comp. 25(2), 109–162 (2012)
Golab, W., Higham, L., Woelfel, P.: Linearizable implementations do not suffice for randomized distributed computation. In: Proc. of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 373–382 (2011)
Hay, J.Z.Y.: Using local time to reconstruct memory models for parallel computation. Final year project. National University of Singapore (2012)
Hay, J.Z.Y., Tay, Y.C.: Memory consistency for parallel systems: A reformulation without global time (keynote address). In: Proc. National Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (2013)
Herlihy, M., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM TOPLAS 12(3), 463–492 (1990)
Jackson, J.: The interplanetary internet. IEEE Spectrum (2005)
Lamport, L.: On interprocess communication, Part I: Basic formalism and Part II: Algorithms. Distributed Computing 1(2), 77–101 (1986)
Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun. ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)
Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)
Lloyd, W., Freedman, M.J., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.G.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: Proc. 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 401–416 (2011)
Lynch, N., Gilbert, S.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. ACM SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)
Terry, D., Petersen, K., Spreitzer, M., Theimer, M.: The case for non-transparent replication: Examples from Bayou. IEEE Data Engineering Bull. 21(4), 12–20 (1998)
Vogels, W.: Eventually consistent. ACM Queue 6(6), 14–19 (2008)
Zhu, Y., Wang, J.: Client-centric consistency formalization and verification for system with large-scale distributed data storage. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 26(8), 1180–1188 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gilbert, S., Golab, W. (2014). Making Sense of Relativistic Distributed Systems. In: Kuhn, F. (eds) Distributed Computing. DISC 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8784. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45174-8_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45174-8_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45173-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45174-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)