Approximate agreement with mixed mode faults: Algorithm and lower bound

  • Richard Plunkett
  • Alan Fekete
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1499)

Abstract

Approximate agreement is a building block for fault-tolerant distributed systems. It is a formalisation for the basic operation of choosing a single real value (representing say speed) for use in later computation, reflecting the different approximations to this value reported from a number of possibly-faulty processors or sensors. We study the approximate agreement problem in distributed systems where processor failures are characterised depending on their severity. We develope a new algorithm that can tolerate up to b byzantine faults, s symmetric ones, and o send-omission faults. We analyse the convergence attained by this algorithm, and also give a universal bound on the convergence available to any algorithm no matter how complicated.

Keywords

Fault Model Message Exchange Mode Fault Faulty Node Communication Unit 
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.
    M. Azadmanesh, R. Kieckhafer, “New Hybrid Fault Models for Asynchronous Approximate Agreement” IEEE Trans on Computers, 45(4):439–449, (1996).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Dolev, N. Lynch, S. Pinter, E. Stark, W. Weihl, “Reaching Approximate Agreement in the Presence of Faults”, Journal of the ACM, 33(3):499–516, (1986).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Dwork, Y. Moses, “Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Byzantine Environment: Crash Failures”, Information and Computation, 88(2):156–186, (1990).MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Fekete, “Asymptotically Optimal Algorithms for Approximate Agreement”, Distributed Computing, 4:9–29, (1990).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Fekete, “Asynchronous Approximate Agreement” Information and Computation 115(1):95–124, (1994).MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, “A Lower Bound for the Time to Assure Interactive Consistency”, Information Processing Letters 14(4):183–186 (1982).MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, M. Patterson, “Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process”, Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374–382 (1985).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kieckhafer, M. Azadmanesh, “Reaching Approximate Agreement with Mixed-Mode Faults”, IEEE Trans on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 5(1):53–63, (1994).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Pease, R. Shostak, L. Lamport, “Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults”, Journal of the ACM 27(2):228–234 (1980).MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Thambidurai, Y. Park, “Interactive Consistency with Multiple Faiilure Modes”, in Proc 7th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, (1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Plunkett
    • 1
  • Alan Fekete
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations