Maintaining a dynamic set of processors in a distributed system

  • Satoshi Fujita
  • Masafumi Yamashita
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1151)


Consider a distributed system consisting of a set V of processors, and assume that every pair of processors can directly communicate with each other. A processor structure is proposed, for implementing a dynamic set \(U \subseteq V\) of processors in the distributed system. The dynamic set supports the following three operations: Insert inserts the caller (i.e., the processor executing this operation) in U, Delete removes the caller from U, and Find searches for a processor in U. To evaluate the efficiency of the implementation, an amortized analysis of the message complexity of operations is performed; the amortized number of messages per each operation is 8 + 12 log2(¦V¦ −1), in the worst case. The dynamic set is applicable to many important problems, including the load balancing problem, and the proposed processor structure is used to solve the mutual exclusion problem, and to construct a more complex dynamic set of processors like FIFO queue.


processor structure data structure dynamic set amortized message complexity group communication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. Awerbuch. Optimal distributed algorithms for minimal weight spanning tree, counting, leader election and related problems. In Proc. 19th STOC, pages 230–240. ACM, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. M. Bernabéu-Aubán and M. Ahamad. Applying a path-compression technique to obtain an efficient distributed mutual exclusion algorithm. In Proc. 3rd WDAG (LNCS 392), pages 33–44, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Chin and H. F. Ting. An almost linear time and O(n log n + e) messages distributed algorithm for minimum-weight spanning trees. In Proc. 26th FOCS, pages 257–266. IEEE, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. J. Fowler. The complexity of using forwarding addresses for decentralized object finding. In Proc. 5th PODC, pages 108–120. ACM, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. G. Gallager, P. A. Humblet, and P. M. Spira. A distributed algorithm for minimum-weight spanning tree. In ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 5, 1 66–77, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Ginat, D. D. Sleator, and R. E. Tarjan. A tight amortized bound for path traversal. Information Processing Letters, 31:3–5, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Singh and A. J. Bernstein. A highly asynchronous minimum spanning tree protocol. Distributed Computing, 8:151–161, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. E. Tarjan. Data Structures and Network Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. M. Theimer and K. A. Lantz. Finding idle machines in a workstation-based distributed system. In Proc. 8th ICDCS, pages 112–122, IEEE, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Trehel and M. Naimi. A distributed algorithm for mutual exclusion based on data structures and fault tolerance. In Proc. 6th Annual Phoenix Conf. on Computers and Communications, pages 35–39. IEEE, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T.-K. Woo. Huffman trees as a basis for a dynamic mutual exclusion algorithm for distributed systems. In Proc. 12th IEEE Int. Conf. on Distr. Comp. Sys., pages 126–133. IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satoshi Fujita
    • 1
  • Masafumi Yamashita
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations