Probabilistic verification of hierarchical leader election protocol in dynamic systems
Leader election protocols are fundamental for coordination problems—such as consensus—in distributed computing. Recently, hierarchical leader election protocols have been proposed for dynamic systems where processes can dynamically join and leave, and no process has global information. However, quantitative analysis of such protocols is generally lacking. In this paper, we present a probabilistic model checking based approach to verify quantitative properties of these protocols. Particularly, we employ the compositional technique in the style of assume-guarantee reasoning such that the sub-protocols for each of the two layers are verified separately and the correctness of the whole protocol is guaranteed by the assume-guarantee rules. Moreover, within this framework we also augment the proposed model with additional features such as rewards. This allows the analysis of time or energy consumption of the protocol. Experiments have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
Keywordsdistributed computing hierarchical leader election protocol dynamic systems probabilistic model checking
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (NS2016093).
- 1.Tucci-Piergiovanni S, Baldoni R. Eventual leader election in infinite arrival message-passing system model with bounded concurrency. In: Proceedings of European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC). 2010, 127–134Google Scholar
- 3.Nakano K, Olariu S. A survey on leader election protocols for radio networks. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms and Networks. 2002, 63–68Google Scholar
- 4.Fischer M, Jiang H. Self-stabilizing leader election in networks of finite-state anonymous agents. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems. 2006, 395–409Google Scholar
- 5.Bakhshi R, Fokkink W, Pang J, Van De Pol J. Leader election in anonymous rings: Franklin goes probabilistic. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFIP International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science–Tcs. 2008, 57–72Google Scholar
- 6.Mostefaoui A, Raynal M, Travers C, Patterson S, Agrawal D, Abbadi A. From static distributed systems to dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems. 2005, 109–118Google Scholar
- 8.Gómez-Calzado C, Lafuente A, Larrea M, Raynal M. Fault-tolerant leader election in mobile dynamic distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing. 2013, 78–87Google Scholar
- 9.Li H G, Wu W G, Zhou Y. Hierarchical eventual leader election for dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing. 2014, 338–351Google Scholar
- 10.Baier C, Katoen J P. Principles of Model Checking. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2008.Google Scholar
- 11.Forejt V, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D. Automated verification techniques for probabilistic systems. In: Bernardo M, Issarny V, eds. Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems. Springer International Publishing, 2011, 53–113Google Scholar
- 12.Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D. Prism 4. 0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2011, 6806: 585–591Google Scholar
- 15.Yang Z W, Wu WG, Chen Y S, Zhang J. Efficient information dissemination in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Parallel Processing. 2013, 603–610Google Scholar
- 16.Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D, Qu H Y. Assume-guarantee verification for probabilistic systems. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. 2010, 23–37Google Scholar
- 18.Shen J, Tan HW, Wang J, Wang J W, Lee S Y. A novel routing protocol providing good transmission reliability in underwater sensor networks. Journal of Internet Technology. 2015, 16(1): 171–178Google Scholar
- 22.Gupta I, Van Renesse R, Birman K P. A probabilistically correct leader election protocol for large groups. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Distributed Computing. 2000, 89–103Google Scholar
- 24.Duflot M, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D, Peyronnet D, Picaronny C, Sproston J. Practical applications of probabilistic model checking to communication protocols. In: Gnesi S, Margaria T, eds. Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems: A Survey of Applications. Wiley, 2012, 133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Naskos A, Stachtiari E, Gounaris A, Katsaros P, Tsoumakos D, Konstantinou I, Sioutas S. Dependable horizontal scaling based on probabilistic model checking. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing. 2015, 31–40Google Scholar
- 27.He K L, Zhang M, He J, Chen Y X. Probabilistic model checking of pipe protocol. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering. 2015, 135–138Google Scholar