Brief Announcement: Weak Synchrony Models and Failure Detectors for Message Passing (k-)Set Agreement

  • Martin Biely
  • Peter Robinson
  • Ulrich Schmid
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5805)

Abstract

Motivation. In recent years, the quest for weak system assumptions, which add just enough synchrony resp. failure information to purely asynchronous systems to circumvent impossibility results, has been an active research topic in distributed computing. Most work in this area has been devoted to (1) identifying weak(est) failure detectors (FDs), and (2) identifying synchrony assumptions just strong enough to implement these weak FDs.

Due to the FLP impossibility result [1], the first focus of this research has been the consensus problem. More recently, k-set agreement (termed set agreement for k = n−1) has been identified as a promising target for further exploring the solvability border in asynchronous systems. As for (1), anti-\({\it \Omega}\) [2] was shown to be the weakest FD for set agreement in shared memory systems: Whereas \({\it \Omega}\) (the weakest FD for solving consensus [3]) outputs the id of one correct process infinitely often, anti-\({\it \Omega}\) outputs the id of one correct process only finitely often. Subsequently, a generalization called anti-\({\it \Omega}_k\) that returns nk processes has been shown to be the weakest FD for k-set agreement in shared memory system [4,5]. For message passing systems, only the weakest FD for set agreement is known, namely, the “loneliness” failure detector \(\cal{L}\) [6]. Concerning (2), a class of shared memory models for implementing anti-\({\it \Omega}_k\) was presented in [7].

References

  1. 1.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. JACM 32, 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zieliński, P.: Automatic classification of eventual failure detectors. In: Pelc, A. (ed.) DISC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4731, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandra, T.D., Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. JACM 43(4), 685–722 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gafni, E., Kuznetsov, P.: The weakest failure detector for solving k-set agreement. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delporte Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R., Tielmann, A.: Brief announcement: The Disagreement Power of an Adversary. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R., Tielmann, A.: The weakest failure detector for message passing set-agreement. In: Taubenfeld, G. (ed.) DISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5218, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aguilera, M.K., Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Toueg, S.: Partial synchrony based on set timeliness. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2009 (to appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: Weak synchrony models and failure detectors for message passing (k-)set agreement. Research Report 182-51/2009, Inst. f. technische Informatik, TU Wien (2009), http://www.vmars.tuwien.ac.at/php/pserver/docdetail.php?DID=2657&viewmode=paper
  9. 9.
    Mostéfaoui, A., Raynal, M.: Unreliable failure detectors with limited scope accuracy and an application to consensus. In: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 329–340 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Biely
    • 1
  • Peter Robinson
    • 1
  • Ulrich Schmid
    • 1
  1. 1.Embedded Computing Systems Group (E182/2)Technische Universität WienAustria

Personalised recommendations