α-Register

  • David Bonnin
  • Corentin Travers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8304)

Abstract

It is well known that in an asynchronous message-passing system, one can emulate an atomic register providing that more than half of the processes are non-faulty. By contrast, when a majority of the processes may fail, simulating atomic register is not possible. This paper investigates weak variants of atomic registers that can be simulated tolerating a majority of processes failures. Specifically, the paper introduces a new class of registers, called α-register and shows how to emulate them.

For atomic registers, a read operation returns the last written value when there is no concurrent write operations. α-registers generalize atomic registers in the following sense: In any interval I, at most α values written before I are returned by the read operations in I. A simulation of an α-register tolerating f failures in a n-processes system is presented for α = 2M − 1, where M =  max (1,2f − n + 2). The simulation is optimal up to a constant multiplicative factor: the paper establishes that α-registers cannot be simulated tolerating f failures if α ≤ M.

Keywords

Message passing fault-tolerance shared-memory simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abraham, I., Malkhi, D.: Probabilistic quorums for dynamic systems. Distributed Computing 18(2), 113–124 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afek, Y., Gafni, E., Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: The k-simultaneous consensus problem. Distributed Computing 22(3), 185–195 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aguilera, M.K., Keidar, I., Malkhi, D., Shraer, A.: Dynamic atomic storage without consensus. J. ACM 58(2), 7 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alon, N., Attiya, H., Dolev, S., Dubois, S., Potop-Butucaru, M., Tixeuil, S.: Pragmatic self-stabilization of atomic memory in message-passing systems. In: Défago, X., Petit, F., Villain, V. (eds.) SSS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6976, pp. 19–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attiya, H., Bar-Noy, A., Dolev, D.: Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. J. ACM 42(1), 124–142 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Attiya, H., Welch, J.: Distributed Computing. Wiley (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonnin, D., Travers, C.: α-register. Technical report hal#00863060 (2013), http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00863060/PDF/
  8. 8.
    Bouzid, Z., Travers, C.: (anti −Ωx ×Σz)-based k-set agreement algorithms. In: Lu, C., Masuzawa, T., Mosbah, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6490, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bouzid, Z., Travers, C.: Parallel consensus is harder than set agreement in message passing. In: ICDCS. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Apache cassandra, http://cassandra.apache.org/
  11. 11.
    Chandra, T., Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. J. ACM 43(4), 685–722 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaudhuri, S.: More choices allow more faults: set consensus problems in totally asynchronous systems. Inf. Comput. 105(1), 132–158 (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeCandia, G., et al.: Dynamo: amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: SOSP, pp. 205–220. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolev, S., Dubois, S., Gradinariu Potop-Butucaru, M., Tixeuil, S.: Crash resilient and pseudo-stabilizing atomic registers. In: Baldoni, R., Flocchini, P., Binoy, R. (eds.) OPODIS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7702, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fekete, A., Gupta, D., Luchangco, V., Lynch, N.A., Shvartsman, A.A.: Eventually-serializable data services. Theor. Comput. Sci. 220(1), 113–156 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedman, R., Kliot, G., Avin, C.: Probabilistic quorum systems in wireless ad hoc networks. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 28(3) (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman, R., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: Two abstractions for implementing atomic objects in dynamic systems. In: Anderson, J.H., Prencipe, G., Wattenhofer, R. (eds.) OPODIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3974, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gafni, E.: The extended bg-simulation and the characterization of t-resiliency. In: STOC, pp. 85–92. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.A.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.A., Shvartsman, A.A.: Rambo: a robust, reconfigurable atomic memory service for dynamic networks. Distributed Computing 23(4), 225–272 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The topological structure of asynchronous computability. J. ACM 46(6), 858–923 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamport, L.: On interprocess communication. Distributed Computing 1(2), 77–101 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malkhi, D., Reiter, M.K., Wool, A., Wright, R.N.: Probabilistic quorum systems. Inf. Comput. 170(2), 184–206 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terry, D.B., Demers, A.J., Petersen, K., Spreitzer, M., Theimer, M., Welch, B.B.: Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In: PDIS, pp. 140–149. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu, H.: Overcoming the majority barrier in large-scale systems. In: Fich, F.E. (ed.) DISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2848, pp. 352–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bonnin
    • 1
  • Corentin Travers
    • 1
  1. 1.LaBRI, University Bordeaux 1France

Personalised recommendations