Advertisement

Optimal amortized distributed consensus

  • Amotz Bar-Noy
  • Xiaotie Deng
  • Juan A. Garay
  • Tiko Kameda
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 579)

Abstract

Are randomized consensus algorithms more powerful than deterministic ones? Seemingly so, since randomized algorithms exist that reach consensus in expected constant number of rounds, whereas the deterministic counterparts are constrained by the rt + 1 lower bound in the number of communication rounds, where t is the maximum number of faults to be tolerated.

In this paper, however, we study the behavior of deterministic algorithms when consensus is repeatedly needed, say k times. We show that it is possible to achieve consensus with the optimal number of processors (n > 3t), and optimal amortized cost in all other measures: the number of communication rounds r*, the maximal message size m*, and the total bit complexity b*.

More specifically, we achieve the following amortized bounds for k consensus instances: r*=O(1 + t/k), b*=O(t2+ t1/k), and m*=O(1 + t2/k). When k ≥ t2, then r* and m* are O(1) and b*=O(t2) which is optimal.

Keywords

Message Size Consensus Problem Consensus Algorithm Communication Round Byzantine Agreement 
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. [BD]
    A. Bar-Noy and D. Dolev, “Consensus Algorithms with One-Bit Messages,” Distributed Computing, Vol 4, pp. 105–110, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [BDDS]
    A. Bar-Noy, D. Dolev, C. Dwork, and H. R. Strong, “Shifting Gears: Changing Algorithms on the Fly to Expedite Byzantine Agreement,” Proc. 6th ACM Symp. of Principles of Dist. Computing, pp. 42–51, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [BE]
    M. Ben-Or and R. El-Yaniv, “Interactive Consistency in Constant Time,” unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. [kg]
    P. Berman and J. A. Garay, “Asymptotically Optimal Distributed Consensus,” Proc. ICALP 89, LNCS Vol. 372, pp. 80–94, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [BGP]
    P. Berman, J. A. Garay, and K. J. Perry, “Asymptotically Optimal Early-Stopping Consensus,” IBM Research Report, in preparation.Google Scholar
  6. [DR]
    D. Dolev and R. Reischuk, “Bounds of Information Exchange for Byzantine Agreement,” JACM, Vol. 32, pp. 191–204, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [DRS]
    D. Dolev, R. Reischuk, and H.R. Strong, “Eventual is Earlier than Immediate,” Proc. 23rd Symp. on Foundations of Comp. Science, pp.196–203, 1982. Revised version appears under the title, “Early-Stopping in Byzantine Agreement,” JACM, Vol.37, pp. 720–741, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [FL]
    M.J. Fischer and N.A. Lynch, “A Lower Bound for the Time to Assure Interactive Consistency,” Information Processing Letters, Vol. 14, pp.183–186, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [FM]
    P. Feldman, and S. Micali, “Optimal Algorithms for Byzantine Agreement,” Proc. 20th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 148–161, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [PSL]
    M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport, “Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults,” Journal of the ACM, Vol. 27, pp. 228–234, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amotz Bar-Noy
    • 2
  • Xiaotie Deng
    • 2
  • Juan A. Garay
    • 1
  • Tiko Kameda
    • 3
  1. 1.IBM T. J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceYork UniversityNorth YorkCanada
  3. 3.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations