Advertisement

On Fractional Dynamic Faults with Threshold

  • Stefan Dobrev
  • Rastislav Královič
  • Richard Královič
  • Nicola Santoro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4056)

Abstract

Unlike localized communication failures that occur on a fixed (although a priori unknown) set of links, dynamic faults can occur on any link. Known also as mobile or ubiquitous faults, their presence makes many tasks difficult if not impossible to solve even in synchronous systems. Their analysis and the development of fault-tolerant protocols have been carried out under two main models. In this paper, we introduce a new model for dynamic faults in synchronous distributed systems. This model includes as special cases the existing settings studied in the literature. We focus on the hardest setting of this model, called simple threshold, where to be guaranteed that at least one message is delivered in a time step, the total number of transmitted messages in that time step must reach a threshold Tc(G), where c(G) is the edge connectivity of the network. We investigate the problem of broadcasting under this model for the worst threshold T = c(G) in several classes of graphs as well as in arbitrary networks. We design solution protocols, proving that broadcast is possible even in this harsh environment. We analyze the time costs showing that broadcast can be completed in (low) polynomial time for several networks including rings (with or without knowledge of n), complete graphs (with or without chordal sense of direction), hypercubes (with or without orientation), and constant-degree networks (with or without full topological knowledge).

Keywords

Complete Graph Fractional Model Active Edge Dynamic Fault Cumulative Model 
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.
    Berman, P., Diks, K., Pelc, A.: Reliable broadcasting in logarithmic time with Byzantine link failures. Journal of Algorithms 22(2), 199–211 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra, T., Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. Journal of ACM 43(4), 685–722 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chlebus, B.S., Diks, K., Pelc, A.: Broadcasting in synchronous networks with dynamic faults. Networks 27, 309–318 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Marco, G., Rescigno, A.: Tighter time bounds on broadcasting in torus networks in presence of dynamic faults. Parallel Processing Letters 10(1), 39–50 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Marco, G., Vaccaro, U.: Broadcasting in hypercubes and star graphs with dynamic faults. Information Processing Letters 66, 309–318 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobrev, S.: Communication-efficient broadcasting in complete networks with dynamic faults. Theory of Computing Systems 36(6), 695–709 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dobrev, S.: Computing input multiplicity in anonymous synchronous networks with dynamic faults. Journal of Discrete Algorithms 2, 425–438 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dobrev, S., Vrtó, I.: Optimal broadcasting in hypercubes with dynamic faults. Information Processing Letters 71, 81–85 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dobrev, S., Vrtó, I.: Optimal broadcasting in even tori with dynamic faults. Parallel Processing Letters 12, 17–22 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dobrev, S., Vrťo, I.: Dynamic faults have small effect on broadcasting in hypercubes. Discrete Applied Mathematics 137(2), 155–158 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM 32(2) (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraigniaud, P., Peyrat, C.: Broadcasting in a hypercube when some calls fail. Information Processing Letters 39, 115–119 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Královič, R., Královič, R., Ružička, P.: Broadcasting with many faulty links. In: Proc. 10th Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication complexity (SIROCCO 2003), pp. 211–222 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liptak, Z., Nickelsen, A.: Broadcasting in complete networks with dynamic edge faults. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2000), Paris, pp. 123–142 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ostromsky, Tz., Nedev, Z.: Broadcasting a Message in a Hypercube with Possible Link Faults. In: Boyanov, K. (ed.) Parallel and Distributed Processing 1991, pp. 231–240. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pelc, A., Peleg, D.: Feasibility and complexity of broadcasting with random transmission failures. In: Proc. 24th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2005), pp. 334–341 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Time is not a healer. In: Cori, R., Monien, B. (eds.) STACS 1989. LNCS, vol. 349, pp. 304–313. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Distributed function evaluation in the presence of transmission faults. In: Asano, T., Imai, H., Ibaraki, T., Nishizeki, T. (eds.) SIGAL 1990. LNCS, vol. 450, pp. 358–367. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Agreement in synchronous networks with ubiquitous faults. In: Theoretical Computer Science (to appear, 2006), Preliminary version in Pelc, A., Raynal, M. (eds.): SIROCCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3499. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Dobrev
    • 1
  • Rastislav Královič
    • 2
  • Richard Královič
    • 2
  • Nicola Santoro
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations