Advertisement

Efficient asynchronous consensus with the value-oblivious adversary scheduler

  • Yonatan Aumann
  • Michael A. Bender
Session 15: Distributed Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1099)

Abstract

We consider the power given to adversary scheduler of an asynchronous system and define the value-oblivious scheduler. At each step this scheduler determines the next processor to operate based on the full history of the dynamics of the execution; the scheduler is oblivious to the intermediate values the processors manipulate. We argue that the value-oblivious scheduler captures the possible sources of asynchrony in real systems.

Assuming the value oblivious adversary, we study the asynchronous consensus problem in the shared-memory setting with atomic reads and writes. We present a probabilistic algorithm that obtains consensus in O(n log2n) total work. Here, total work is defined as the total number of steps performed by all processors collectively. Thus, the amortized work per processor is O(log2n).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Abrahamson. On achieving consensus using shared memory. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 291–302, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Aspnes. Time-and space-efficient randomized consensus. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 325–331, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Aspnes and M. Herlihy. Fast randomized consensus using shared memory. Journal of Algorithms, 11(3):441–461, September 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Aspnes and O. Waarts. Randomized consensus in expected O(nlog2 n) operations per processor. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 137–146, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Attiya, D. Dolev, and N. Shavit. Bounded polynomial randomized consensus. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 281–294, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Attiya, N. Lynch, and N. Shavit. Are Wait-Free Algorithms Fast? In 31st FOCS, pages55–64, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Aumann and M.O. Rabin. Clock construction in fully asynchronous parallel systems and pram simulation. Theoretical Computer Science, 128:3–30, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Bracha and O. Rachman. Randomized consensus in expected O(n 2 log n) operations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Distributed algorithms. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.D. Chandra. Polylog Randomized Wait-Free Consensus. To appear in Proceedings of the 15th PODC, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Chor, A. Israeli, and L. Ming. On processor coordination using asynchronous hardware. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 86–97, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Dolev, S. Dwork, and L. Stockmeyer. On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):77–97, January 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.J. Fischer, N.A. Lynch, and M.S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed commit with one faulty process. Journal of ACM, 32(2):374–382, April 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Herlihy. Impossibility results for asynchronous PRAM. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on the Parallel Architectures and Algorithms, pages 327–336, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):124–149, January 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. G. Loui and H. Abu-Amara. Memory Requirements for Agreement Among Unreliable Asynchronous Processors. Advances in Computing Research, vol. 4, pages 163–183, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Martel, R. Subramonian, and A. Park. Asynchronous PRAMs are (almost) as Good as Synchronous PRAMs. In Proceeding of 31st FOCS, pages 590–599, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Plotkin. Sticky bits and universality of consensus. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 159–176, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.O. Rabin. N-Process mutual exclusion with bounded waiting by 4 log2 N-valued shared variable. Jour. Comp. Sys. Sc., 25:66–75, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Saks, N. Shavit, and H. Woll. Optimal Time Randomized Consensus — Making Resilient Algorithms Fast in Practice. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 351–362, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yonatan Aumann
    • 1
  • Michael A. Bender
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  2. 2.Aiken Computation LaboratoryHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations