Advertisement

Generalized Universality

  • Eli Gafni
  • Rachid Guerraoui
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6901)

Abstract

State machine replication reduces distributed to centralized computing. Any sequential service, modeled by a state machine, can be replicated over any number of processes and made highly available to all of them. At the heart of this fundamental reduction lies the so called universal consensus abstraction, key to providing the illusion of single shared service, despite replication.

Yet, as universal as it may be, consensus is just one specific instance of a more general abstraction, k-set consensus where, instead of agreeing on a unique decision, the processes may diverge but at most k different decisions are reached. It is legitimate to ask whether the celebrated state machine replication construct has its analogue with k > 1. If it did not, one could question the aura of distributed computing deserving an underpinning Theory for 1, the unit of multiplication, would be special in a field, distributed computing, that does not arithmetically multiply.

This paper presents, two decades after k-set consensus was introduced, the generalization with k > 1 of state machine replication. We show that with k-set consensus, any number of processes can emulate k state machines of which at least one remains highly available. While doing so, we also generalize the very notion of consensus universality.

Keywords

State machine replication k-set consensus universality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lynch, N.: Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borowsky, E., Gafni, E.: Generalized FLP Impossibility Results for t-Resilient Asynchronous Computations. In: STOC (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Afek, Y., Gafni, E., Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: The k-simultaneous consensus problem. Distributed Computing 22(3), 185–195 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamport, L.: The Part-Time Parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaudhuri, S.: More Choices Allow More Faults: Set Consensus Problems in Totally Asynchronous Systems. Information and Computation 105, 132–158 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer, M., Lynch, N., Paterson, M.: Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gafni, E.: Round-by-Round Fault Detectors: Unifying Synchrony and Asynchrony. In: PODC (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herlihy, M.: Wait-Free Synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 11(1), 124–149 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herlihy, M.P., Shavit, N.: The Topological Structure of Asynchronous Computability. Journal of the ACM 46(6), 858–923 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saks, M., Zaharoglou, F.: Wait-Free k-set consensus is Impossible: The Topology of Public Knowledge. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(5), 1449–1483 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L.: Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Communications of the ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eli Gafni
    • 1
  • Rachid Guerraoui
    • 2
  1. 1.UCLAUSA
  2. 2.EPFLSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations