Advertisement

Using failure detectors to solve consensus in asynchronous shared-memory systems

Extended abstract
  • Wai-Kau Lo
  • Vassos Hadzilacos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 857)

Abstract

Chandra and Toueg proposed a new approach to overcome the impossibility of reaching consensus in asynchronous message-passing systems subject to crash failures [6]. They augment the asynchronous message-passing system with a (possibly unreliable) failure detector. Informally, a failure detector provides some information about the processes that have crashed during an execution of the system. In this paper, we present several Consensus algorithms using different types failure detectors in asynchronous shared-memory systems. We also prove several lower bounds and impossibility results regarding solving Consensus using failure detectors in asynchronous shared-memory systems.

Keywords

Correct Process Failure Detector Failure Pattern Impossibility Result 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yehuda Afek, Hagit Attiya, Danny Dolev, Eli Gafni, Michael Merritt and Nir Shavit. Atomic snapshots of shared memory. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 1–13, August 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yehuda Afek, David S. Greenberg, Michael Merritt, and Gadi Taubenfeld. Computing with faulty shared memory. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 47–58, August 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    James Aspnes and Maurice Herlihy. Fast randomized consensus using shared memory. Journal of Algorithms, 11:441–461, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael Ben-Or. Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocol. In Proceedings of the 2th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 27–30, August 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tushar Deepak Chandra, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Sam Toueg. The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1992. Also Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1993, Ithaca, NY 14853-7501.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for asynchronous systems. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Faith Fich, Maurice Herlihy, and Nir Shavit. On the space complexity of randomized synchronization. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 241–249, August 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, and Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 32(2):374–382, April 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prasad Jayanti, Tushar Deepak Chandra, and Sam Toueg. Fault-tolerant wait-free shared objects. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michael C. Loui and Hosame H. Abu-Amara. Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. In Advances in Computer Research, volume 4, pages 163–183. JAI Press Inc., 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wai-Kau Lo
    • 1
  • Vassos Hadzilacos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations