Organising LTL Monitors over Distributed Systems with a Global Clock

  • Christian Colombo
  • Yliès Falcone
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8734)


Users wanting to monitor distributed systems often prefer to abstract away the architecture of the system, allowing them to directly specify correctness properties on the global system behaviour. To support this abstraction, a compilation of the properties would not only involve the typical choice of monitoring algorithm, but also the organisation of submonitors across the component network. Existing approaches, considered in the context of LTL properties over distributed systems with a global clock, include the so-called orchestration and migration approaches. In the orchestration approach, a central monitor receives the events from all subsystems. In the migration approach, LTL formulae transfer themselves across subsystems to gather local information.

We propose a third way of organising submonitors: choreography — where monitors are orgnized as a tree across the distributed system, and each child feeds intermediate results to its parent. We formalise this approach, proving its correctness and worst case performance, and report on an empirical investigation comparing the three approaches on several concerns of decentralised monitoring.


Linear Temporal Logic System Cycle Global Clock Local Monitor Monitoring Algorithm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bartocci, E.: Sampling-based decentralized monitoring for networked embedded systems. In: 3rd Int. Work. on Hybrid Autonomous Systems. EPTCS, vol. 124, pp. 85–99 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Logic and Computation 20(3), 651–674 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralised LTL monitoring. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falcone, Y., Cornebize, T., Fernandez, J.C.: Efficient and generalized decentralized monitoring of regular languages. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 66–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francalanza, A., Gauci, A., Pace, G.J.: Distributed system contract monitoring. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 82(5-7), 186–215 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graf, S., Peled, D., Quinton, S.: Monitoring distributed systems using knowledge. In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, D.: A taxonomy of parallel prefix networks. In: Signals, Systems and Computers, vol. 2, pp. 2213–2217 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: SFCS 1977: Proc. of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sen, K., Vardhan, A., Agha, G., Rosu, G.: Decentralized runtime analysis of multithreaded applications. In: 20th Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). IEEE (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Colombo
    • 1
  • Yliès Falcone
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MaltaMalta
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique de GrenobleUniversity of Grenoble-AlpesFrance

Personalised recommendations