Advertisement

Lower Bound on the Step Complexity of Anonymous Binary Consensus

  • Hagit AttiyaEmail author
  • Ohad Ben-BaruchEmail author
  • Danny HendlerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9888)

Abstract

Obstruction-free consensus, ensuring that a process running solo will eventually terminate, is at the core of practical ways to solve consensus, e.g., by using randomization or failure detectors. An obstruction-free consensus algorithm may not terminate in many executions, but it must terminate whenever a process runs solo. Such an algorithm can be evaluated by its solo step complexity, which bounds the worst case number of steps taken by a process running alone, from any configuration, until it decides.

This paper presents a lower bound of \(\varOmega (\log n)\) on the solo step complexity of obstruction-free binary anonymous consensus. The proof constructs a sequence of executions in which more and more distinct variables are about to be written to, and then uses the backtracking covering technique to obtain a single execution in which many variables are accessed.

Keywords

Space Complexity Shared Variable Failure Detector Consensus Algorithm Step Complexity 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Aspnes, J., Attiya, H., Censor-Hillel, K., Hendler, D.: Lower bounds for restricted-use objects. In: SPAA, pp. 172–181 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspnes, J., Ellen, F.: Tight bounds for adopt-commit objects. Theor. Comput. Syst. 55(3), 451–474 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attiya, H., Guerraoui, R., Hendler, D., Kuznetsov, P.: The complexity of obstruction-free implementations. J. ACM 56(4), 444–468 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouzid, Z., Sutra, P., Travers, C.: Anonymous agreement: the janus algorithm. In: Fernàndez Anta, A., Lipari, G., Roy, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7109, pp. 175–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capdevielle, C., Johnen, C., Kuznetsov, P., Milani, A.: Brief announcement: on the uncontended complexity of anonymous consensus. In: Moses, Y. (ed.) DISC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9363, pp. 667–668. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellen, F., Hendler, D., Shavit, N.: On the inherent sequentiality of concurrent objects. SIAM J. Comput. 41(3), 519–536 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fich, F., Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: On the space complexity of randomized synchronization. J. ACM 45(5), 843–862 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendler, D., Shavit, N.: Solo-valency and the cost of coordination. Distrib. Comput. 21(1), 43–54 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M.: Obstruction-free synchronization: double-ended queues as an example. In: ICDCS, pp. 522–529 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luchangco, V., Moir, M., Shavit, N.N.: On the uncontended complexity of consensus. In: Fich, F.E. (ed.) DISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2848, pp. 45–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhu, L.: Brief announcement: tight space bounds for memoryless anonymous consensus. In: Moses, Y. (ed.) DISC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9363, pp. 665–666. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu, L.: A tight space bound for consensus. In: STOC (2016, to appear)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer-ScienceBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations