WDAG 1996: Distributed Algorithms pp 29-39 | Cite as

Randomization and failure detection: A hybrid approach to solve Consensus

  • Marcos Kawazoe Aguilera
  • Sam Toueg
Regular Papers
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1151)

Abstract

We present a Consensus algorithm that combines randomization and unreliable failure detection, two well-known techniques for solving Consensus in asynchronous systems with crash failures. This hybrid algorithm combines advantages from both approaches: it guarantees deterministic termination if the failure detector is accurate, and probabilistic termination otherwise. In executions with no failures or failure detector mistakes, the most likely ones in practice, Consensus is reached in only two asynchronous rounds.

Keywords

Hybrid Algorithm Correct Process Failure Detector Consensus Problem Consensus Algorithm 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AT96]
    Marcos Kawazoe Aguilera and Sam Toueg. Randomization and failure detection: A hybrid approach to solve consensus. Technical Report 96-1592, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, June 1996. Available by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.cornell.edu in pub/sam/hybrid.consensus.algorithm.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  2. [Ben83]
    Michael Ben-Or. Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 27–30, August 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [BT83]
    Gabriel Bracha and Sam Toueg. Resilient consensus protocols. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 12–26, August 1983. An extended and revised version appeared as “Asynchronous consensus and broadcast protocols” in the Journal of the ACM, 32(4):824–840, October 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [CD89]
    Benny Chor and Cynthia Dwork. Randomization in Byzantine Agreement. Advances in Computer Research (JAI Press Inc.), 4:443–497, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [CHT92]
    Tushar Deepak Chandra, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Sam Toueg. The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 147–158, August 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [CHT96]
    Tushar Deepak Chandra, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Sam Toueg. The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. Journal of the ACM, 43(4), July 1996. An earlier version appeared in [CHT92].Google Scholar
  7. [CMS89]
    Benny Chor, Michael Merritt, and David B. Shmoys. Simple constant-time consensus protocols in realistic failure models. Journal of the ACM, 36(3):591–614, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [CT91]
    Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for asynchronous systems. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 325–340. ACM Press, August 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [CT96]
    Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM, 43(2):225–267, March 1996. An earlier version appeared in [CT91].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [DDS87]
    Danny Dolev, Cynthia Dwork, and Larry Stockmeyer. On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):77–97, January 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [DLS88]
    Cynthia Dwork, Nancy A. Lynch, and Larry Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 35(2):288–323, April 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [DM94]
    Danny Dolev and Dalia Malki. Consensus made practical. Technical Report CS94-7, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, March 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [FLP85]
    Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, and Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374–382, April 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [GP90]
    Oded Goldreich and Erez Petrank. The best of both worlds: guaranteeing termination in fast randomized Byzantine Agreement protocols. Information Processing Letters, 36(1):45–49, October 1990.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [Rab83]
    Michael Rabin. Randomized Byzantine Generals. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 403–409. IEEE Computer Society Press, November 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [Tou84]
    Sam Toueg. Randomized Byzantine Agreements. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 163–178, August 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [Zam96]
    Arkady Zamsky. A randomized Byzantine Agreement protocol with constant expected time and guaranteed termination in optimal (deterministic) time. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 201–208, May 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcos Kawazoe Aguilera
    • 1
  • Sam Toueg
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations