Skip to main content
Log in

New bounds for the controller problem

  • Published:
Distributed Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The (M, W)-controller, originally studied by Afek, Awerbuch, Plotkin, and Saks, is a basic distributed tool that provides an abstraction for managing the consumption of a global resource in a distributed dynamic network. The input to the controller arrives online in the form of requests presented at arbitrary nodes. A request presented at node u corresponds to the “desire” of some entity to consume one unit of the global resource at u and the controller should handle this request within finite time either by granting it with a permit or by denying it. Initially, M permits (corresponding to M units of the global resource) are stored at a designated root node. Throughout the execution permits can be transported from place to place along the network’s links so that they can be granted to requests presented at various nodes; when a permit is granted to some request, it is eliminated from the network. The fundamental rule of an (M, W)-controller is that a request should not be denied unless it is certain that at least MW permits are eventually granted. The most efficient (M, W)-controller known to date has message complexity \({O (N\log^{2} N \log \frac{M}{W + 1})}\), where N is the number of nodes that ever existed in the network (the dynamic network may undergo node insertions and deletions). In this paper we establish two new lower bounds on the message complexity of the controller problem. We first prove a simple lower bound stating that any (M, W)-controller must send \({\Omega (N \log \frac{M}{W + 1})}\) messages. Second, for the important case when W is proportional to M (this is the common case in most applications), we use a surprising reduction from the (centralized) monotonic labeling problem to show that any (M, W)-controller must send Ω(N log N) messages. In fact, under a long lasting conjecture regarding the complexity of the monotonic labeling problem, this lower bound is improved to a tight Ω(N log2 N). The proof of this lower bound requires that NO(M) which turns out to be somewhat inevitable due to a new construction of an (M, M/2)-controller with message complexity O(N log2 M).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Afek Y., Awerbuch B., Plotkin S.A., Saks M.: Local management of a global resource in a communication network. J. ACM 43, 1–19 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Afek Y., Ricklin M.: Sparser: a paradigm for running distributed algorithms. J. Algorithms 14(2), 316–328 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Afek, Y., Saks, M.E.: Detecting global termination conditions in the face of uncertainty. In: Proceedings 7th ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC), pp. 109–124 (1987)

  4. Andersson, A., Lai, T.W.: Fast updating of well-balanced trees. In: Proceedings of 2nd Scandinavian workshop on algorithm theory (SWAT), pp. 111–121 (1990)

  5. Awerbuch, B., Kutten, S., Peleg, D.: Competitive distributed job scheduling (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of 24th ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 571–580 (1992)

  6. Bar-Yehuda R., Kutten S.: Fault tolerant distributed majority commitment. J. Algorithms 9(4), 568–582 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bender, M.A., Cole, R., Demaine, E.D., Farach-Colton, M., Zito, J.: Two simplified algorithms for maintaining order in a list. In: Proceedings of 10th annals of European symposium on algorithms (ESA), pp. 152–164 (2002)

  8. Dietz, P.F.: Maintaining Order in a Linked List. In: Proceedings of 14th ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 122–127 (1982)

  9. Dietz P.F., Seiferas J.I., Zhang J.: A tight lower bound for online monotonic list labeling. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 18(3), 626–637 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Dietz, P.F., Sleator, D.D.: Two algorithms for maintaining order in a list. In: Proceedings of 19th ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 365–372 (1987)

  11. Dietz, P.F., Zhang, J.: Lower bounds for monotonic list labeling. In: Proceedings of 2nd Scandinavian workshop on algorithm theory (SWAT), pp. 173–180 (1990)

  12. Fischer M.J., Lynch N.A., Paterson M.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Itai, A., Konheim, A., Rodeh, M.: A sparse table implementation of priority queues. In: Proceedings of 8th Colloq. on automata, languages and programming (ICALP), pp. 417–431 (1981)

  14. Korman A.: General compact labeling schemes for dynamic trees. J. Distributed Comput. 20(3), 179–193 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Korman, A.: Improved compact routing schemes for dynamic trees. In: Proceedings of 27th ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC), pp. 185–194 (2008)

  16. Korman, A., Kutten, S.: Controller and estimator for dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of 26th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC), pp. 175–184 (2007)

  17. Korman A., Peleg D., Rodeh Y.: Labeling schemes for dynamic tree networks. Theory Comput. Syst. 37(1), 49–75 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Korman A., Peleg D.: Labeling schemes for weighted dynamic trees. J. Inf. Comput. 205(12), 1721–1740 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Kutten S.: Optimal fault-tolerant distributed construction of a spanning forest. Inf. Process. Lett. 27(6), 299–307 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Lotker Z., Patt-Shamir B., Rosén A.: Distributed approximate matching. SIAM J. Comput. 39(2), 445–460 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Lund C., Reingold N., Westbrook J., Yan D.C.K.: Competitive on-line algorithms for distributed data management. SIAM J. Comput. 28(3), 1086–1111 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsakalidis A.K.: Maintaining order in a generalized linked list. Acta Inf. 21, 101–112 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Willard, D.: Maintaining dense sequential files in a dynamic environment. In: Proceedings of 14th ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 114–121 (1982)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amos Korman.

Additional information

A. Korman’s work was supported in part by the ANR project ALADDIN, by the INRIA project GANG, and by COST Action 295 DYNAMO.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Emek, Y., Korman, A. New bounds for the controller problem. Distrib. Comput. 24, 177–186 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-010-0119-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-010-0119-z

Keywords

Navigation