Distributed Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 209–221 | Cite as

Randomized registers and iterative algorithms

Article

Abstract.

We present three different specifications of a read-write register that may occasionally return out-of-date values - namely, a (basic) random register, a P-random register, and a monotone random register. We show that these specifications are implemented by the probabilistic quorum algorithm of Malkhi, Reiter, Wool, and Wright, and we illustrate how to program with such registers in the framework of Bertsekas, using the notation of Üresin and Dubois. Consequently, existing iterative algorithms for a significant class of problems (including solving systems of linear equations, finding shortest paths, constraint satisfaction, and transitive closure) will converge with high probability if executed in a system in which the shared data is implemented with registers satisfying the new specifications. Furthermore, the algorithms in this framework will inherit positive attributes concerning load and fault-tolerance from the underlying register implementation. The expected convergence time for iterative algorithms using the monotone implementation is analyzed and shown experimentally to improve on that of the original implementation. The message complexity for iterative algorithms using the monotone probabilistic quorum implementation is shown to improve on that of non-probabilistic implementations in a quantifiable situation.

Keywords:

distributed shared memory registers randomization probabilistic quorums iterative algorithms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adve S, Hill M: Weak ordering - a new definition. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture 1990, pp 2-14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afek Y, Greenberg D, Merritt M, Taubenfeld G: Computing with Faulty Shared Objects. J. ACM 42(6), 1231-1274 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahamad M, Burns JE, Hutto PW, Neiger G: Causal Memory. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, Oct. 1991, pp 9-30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attiya H, Chaudhuri S, Friedman R, Welch J: Shared Memory Consistency Conditions for Nonsequential Execution: Definitions and Programming Strategies. SIAM J. Computing 27(1), 65-89 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attiya H, Friedman R: A Correctness Condition for High-Performance Multiprocessors. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1992, pp 679-690Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertsekas D: Distributed Asynchronous Computation of Fixed Points. Mathematical Programming 27, 107-120 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertsekas D, Tsitsiklis, J: Parallel and Distributed Computation. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chazan D, Miranker W: Chaotic relaxation. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 2, 199-222 (1969)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czumaj A, Meyer auf der Heide F, Stemann V: Simulating Shared Memory in Real Time: On the Computation Power of Reconfigurable Architectures. Information and Computation, 137, 103-120 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta R, Smolka S, Bhaskar S: On Randomization in Sequential and Distributed Algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys 26(1), 7-86 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herlihy MP, Wing JM: Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 12(3), 463-492 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayanti P, Chandra T, Toueg S: Fault-tolerant wait-free shared objects. J. ACM 45(3), 451-500 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamport L: How to Make a Multiprocessor that Correctly Executes Multiprocess Programs. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-28(9), 690-691 (1979)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamport L: On Interprocess Communication, Part I: Basic Formalism. Distributed Computing 1(2), 77-85 (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamport L: On Interprocess Communication, Part II: Algorithms. Distributed Computing 1(2), 86-101 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee H: Programs to compute the probability distribution of outdatedness for the probabilistic quorum implementation. Available from http://www.cs.du.edu/~hlee/Research/Programs/Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee H, Welch JL: Randomized Shared Queues Applied to Distributed Optimization Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2001), Dec. 2001, pp 587-598Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malkhi D, Reiter M: Byzantine quorum systems. Distributed Computing 11(4), 203-213 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malkhi D, Reiter MK, Wool A, Wright RN: probabilistic quorum systems. Information and Computation 170, 184-206 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motwani R, Raghavan P: Randomized Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 1995Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naor M, Wool A: The load, capacity and availability of quorum systems. SIAM J. Computing 27(2), 423-447 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peleg D, Wool A: The availability of quorum systems. Information and Computation 123(2), 210-233 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shavit N, Zemach A: Diffracting trees. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems 14(4), 385-428 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shavit N, Zemach A: Combining funnels. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1998, pp 61-70Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shiryayev AN: Probability. Springer-Verlag, 1984Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szpankowski W, Rego V: Yet another application of a binomial recurrence: order statistics. Computing 43, 401-410 (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Üresin A, Dubois M: Parallel asynchronous algorithms for discrete data. ACM J. 37(3), 558-606 (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Üresin A, Dubois M: Effects of asynchronism on the convergence rate of iterative algorithms. J. Parallel and Distributed Computing 34, 66-81 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu H: Overcoming the Majority Barrier in Large-scale Systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing, 2003, pp 352-366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations