Planar quorums

  • Rida A. Bazzi
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1151)


Quorum systems are used to implement many coordination problems in distributed systems such as mutual exclusion, data replication, distributed consensus, and commit protocols. This paper presents a new class of quorum systems based on connected regions in planar graphs. This class has an intuitive geometric nature and is easy to visualize and map to the system topology. We show that for triangulated graphs, the resulting quorum systems are non-dominated, which is a desirable property. We study the performance of these systems in terms of their availability, load, and cost of failures. We formally introduce the concept of cost of failures and argue that it is needed to analyze the message complexity of quorum-based protocols. We show that quorums of triangulated graphs with bounded degree have optimal cost of failure. We study a particular member of this class, the triangle lattice. The triangle lattice has small quorum size, optimal load for its size, high availability, and optimal cost of failures. Its parameters are not matched by any other proposed system in the literature. We use percolation theory to study the availability of this system.


quorum systems fault tolerance load cost of failures planar graphs distributed systems percolation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Agrawal and A. El-Abbadi. An efficient and fault-tolerant solution for distributed mutual exclusion. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 9(1):1–20, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bollobás. Graph Theory, An Introductory Course Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bollobás. Combinatorics. Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Condorcet. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilité des decision rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris, 1785.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Garcia-Molina and D. Barbara. How to assign votes in a distributed system. Journal of the ACM, 32(4):481–860, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. K. Gifford. Weighted Voting for Replicated Data Proceeding of 7th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 150–162, December 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. R. Grimmett. Percolation. Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. P. Herlihy. Replication Methods for Abstract Data Types. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. G. Hocking and G. S. Young Topology. Dover, 1988Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Ibaraki and T. Kameda. A theory of Coteries: Mutual Exclusion in Distributed Systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 4(7):779–749, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Kesten. Percolation Theorey for Mathematicians. Progress in Probability and Statistics, Birkhäuser, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Kumar. Hierarchical quorum consensus: A new algorithm for managing replicated data. IEEE Transactions of Computers, 40(9):996–1004, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Kumar., M. Rabinovich, and R. Sinha. A performance study of general grid structures for replicated data. In Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 178–185, May, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Lovász. Covering and colorings of hypergraphs. In Proceedings of 4th Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, pages 3–12, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Maekawa. A √n algorithm for mutual exclusion in decentralized systems. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 3(2):145–159, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. R. F. Maunder Algebraic Topology Van Nostrand, 1970Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. J. Mullender and P. M. B. Vitanyi. Distributed Match Making. Algorithmica, 3:367–391, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. L. Neilsen Quorum Structures in Distributed Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Kansas State University, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. L. Neilsen and M. Mizuno. Decentralized Consensus Porotocols In Proceedings of 10th International Phoenix Conference on Computing and Communications, pages 257–262, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Naor and A. Wool The Load, capacity and availability of quorum systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 214–225. 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Peleg and A. Wool. The availability of quorum systems. Information and Computation, 123(2):210–223, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Peleg and A. Wool. Crumbling Walls: A class of high availability quorum systems. In Processedings 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 120–129, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Skeen. A quorum-based commit protocol. In Proceedings of 6th Berkeley Workshop on Distributed Data Management and Computer Networks, pages 69–80, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy database. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 4(2):180–209, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rida A. Bazzi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations