Easy Impossibility Proofs for k-Set Agreement in Message Passing Systems

  • Martin Biely
  • Peter Robinson
  • Ulrich Schmid
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7109)

Abstract

Despite of being quite similar (agreement) problems, 1-set agreement (consensus) and general k-set agreement require surprisingly different techniques for proving the impossibility in asynchronous systems with crash failures: Rather than the relatively simple bivalence arguments as in the impossibility proof for consensus in the presence of a single crash failure, known proofs for the impossibility of k-set agreement in shared memory systems with f ≥ k > 1 crash failures use algebraic topology or a variant of Sperner’s Lemma. In this paper, we present a generic theorem for proving the impossibility of k-set agreement in various message passing settings, which is based on a reduction to the consensus impossibility in a certain subsystem resulting from a partitioning argument.

We demonstrate the broad applicability of our result by exploring the possibility/impossibility border of k-set agreement in several message-passing system models: (i) asynchronous systems with crash failures, (ii) partially synchronous processes with (initial) crash failures, and, most importantly, (iii) asynchronous systems augmented with failure detectors. In (i), (ii), and (iii), the impossibility part is an instantiation of our main theorem, whereas the possibility of achieving k-set agreement in (ii) follows by generalizing the consensus algorithm for initial crashes by Fisher, Lynch and Patterson. In (iii), applying our technique reveals the exact border for the parameter k where k-set agreement is solvable with the failure detector class (Σkk)1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1 of Bonnet and Raynal. As Σk was shown to be necessary for solving k-set agreement, this result yields new insights on the quest for the weakest failure detector.

Keywords

k-set agreement failure detectors consensus impossibility proofs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borowsky, E., Gafni, E.: Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations. In: STOC 1993: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 91–100. ACM, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The asynchronous computability theorem for t-resilient tasks. In: STOC 1993: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 111–120. ACM, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saks, M., Zaharoglou, F.: Wait-free k-set agreement is impossible: The topology of public knowledge. SIAM J. Comput. 29(5), 1449–1483 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fich, F., Ruppert, E.: Hundreds of impossibility results for distributed computing. Distributed Computing 16, 121–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: Weak synchrony models and failure detectors for message passing k-set agreement. In: Abdelzaher, T., Raynal, M., Santoro, N. (eds.) OPODIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 5923, pp. 285–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouzid, Z., Travers, C.: (anti −Ωx ×Σz)-Based k-Set Agreement Algorithms. In: Lu, C., Masuzawa, T., Mosbah, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6490, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonnet, F., Raynal, M.: On the road to the weakest failure detector for k-set agreement in message-passing systems. Theoretical Computer Science 412(33), 4273–4284 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alistarh, D., Gilbert, S., Guerraoui, R., Travers, C.: Brief Announcement: New Bounds for Partially Synchronous Set Agreement. In: Lynch, N.A., Shvartsman, A.A. (eds.) DISC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6343, pp. 404–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Stockmeyer, L.: On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. Journal of the ACM 34(1), 77–97 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charron-Bost, B., Schiper, A.: Uniform consensus is harder than consensus. J. Algorithms 51(1), 15–37 (2004); Also published as Tech. Rep. DSC/2000/028, EPFLGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lynch, N.: Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandra, T.D., Toueg, S.: Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM 43(2), 225–267 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: Easy impossibility proofs for k-set agreement in message passing systems. Research Report 2/2011, Technische Universität Wien, Institut für Technische Informatik (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raynal, M.: Failure detectors to solve asynchronous k-set agreement: a glimpse of recent results. Bulletin of the EACTS (103), 74–95 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R.: Tight failure detection bounds on atomic object implementations. J. ACM 57, 22:1–22:32 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neiger, G.: Failure detectors and the wait-free hierarchy (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 1995, pp. 100–109. ACM, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Biely
    • 1
  • Peter Robinson
    • 2
  • Ulrich Schmid
    • 3
  1. 1.EPFLSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Mathematical SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore
  3. 3.Embedded Computing Systems GroupTechnische Universität WienAustria

Personalised recommendations