No Double Discount: Condition-Based Simultaneity Yields Limited Gain

  • Yoram Moses
  • Michel Raynal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5218)

Abstract

Assuming that each process proposes a value, the consensus problem requires the non-faulty processes to agree on the same value that, moreover, must be one of the proposed values. Solutions to the consensus problem in synchronous systems are based on the round-based model, namely, the processes progress in synchronous rounds. The well-known worst-case lower bound for consensus in the synchronous setting is t + 1 rounds, where t is an a priori bound on the number of failures. Simultaneous consensus is a variant of consensus in which the non-faulty processes are required to decide in the exact same round, in addition to the deciding on the same value. Dwork and Moses showed that, in a synchronous system prone to t process crashes, the earliest round at which a common decision can be simultaneously obtained is (t + 1) − W where t is a bound on the number of faulty processes and W is a non-negative integer determined by the actual failure pattern F. In the condition-based approach consensus the consensus requirement is relaxed by assuming that the input vectors (consisting of the proposed initial values) are restricted to belong to a predetermined set C. Initially considered as a means to achieve solvability for consensus in the asynchronous setting, condition-based consensus was shown by Mostéfaoui, Rajsbaum and Raynal to allow solutions with better worst-case behavior. They defined a hierarchy of sets of conditions Open image in new window (where the set Open image in new window contains the condition made up of all possible input vectors). It has been shown that t + 1 − d is a tight lower bound on the minimal number of rounds for synchronous condition-based consensus with a condition in Open image in new window.

This paper considers condition-based simultaneous consensus in the synchronous model. It first presents a simple algorithm in which processes decide simultaneously at the end of the round RSt,d,F = (t + 1) −  max (W, d). The paper then shows that RSt,d,F is a lower bound for simultaneous condition-based consensus. A consequence of the analysis is that the algorithm presented is optimal in each and every run, and not just in the worst case: For every choice of failure pattern by the adversary (and every input configuration), the algorithm reaches simultaneous agreement as fast as any correct algorithm could do under the same conditions. This shows that, contrary to what could be hoped, when considering condition-based consensus with simultaneous decision, we can benefit from the best of both actual worlds (either the failure world when RSt,d,F= (t + 1) − W, or the condition world when RSt,d,F= d + 1), but we cannot benefit from the sum of savings offered by both. Only the best discount applies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dolev, D., Reischuk, R., Strong, R.: Early Stopping in Byzantine Agreement. Journal of the ACM 37(4), 720–741 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dwork, C., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Byzantine Environment: Crash Failures. Information and Computation 88(2), 156–186 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedman, R., Mostéfaoui, A., Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M.: Asynchronous Agreement and its Relation with Error-Correcting Codes. IEEE Trans. on Computers 56(7), 865–876 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment. Journal of the ACM 37(3), 549–587 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizrahi, T., Moses, Y.: Continuous Consensus via Common Knowledge. Distributed Computing 20(5), 305–321 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moses, Y., Rajsbaum, S.: A Layered Analysis of Consensus. SIAM Journal of Computing 31(4), 989–1021 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moses, Y., Raynal, M.: Revisiting Simultaneous Consensus with Crash Failures. Tech Report 1885, IRISA, Université de Rennes 1, France, 17 pages (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moses, Y., Raynal, M.: No Double Discount: Condition-based Simultaneity Yields Limited Gain. Tech Report 1898, IRISA, Université de Rennes 1, France, 20 pages (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moses, Y., Tuttle, M.R.: Programming Simultaneous Actions Using Common Knowledge. Algorithmica 3, 121–169 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mostéfaoui, A., Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M.: Conditions on Input Vectors for Consensus Solvability in Asynchronous Distributed Systems. Journal of the ACM 50(6), 922–954 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mostéfaoui, A., Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M.: Synchronous Condition-Based Consensus. Dist. Computing 18(5), 325–343 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pease, L., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching Agreement in Presence of Faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raynal, M.: Consensus in Synchronous Systems: a Concise Guided Tour. In: roc. 9th IEEE Pacific Rim Int’l Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC 2002), pp. 221–228. IEEE Computer Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoram Moses
    • 1
  • Michel Raynal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.IRISARennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations