Advertisement

Making Sense of Relativistic Distributed Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8784)

Abstract

Linearizability, a widely-accepted correctness property for shared objects, is grounded in classical physics. Its definition assumes a total temporal order over invocation and response events, which is tantamount to assuming the existence of a global clock that determines the time of each event. By contrast, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, there can be no global clock: time itself is relative. For example, given two events A and B, one observer may perceive A occurring before B, another may perceive B occurring before A, and yet another may perceive A and B occurring simultaneously,with respect to local time.

Here, we generalize linearizability for relativistic distributed systems using techniques that do not rely on a global clock. Our novel correctness property, called relativistic linearizability, is instead defined in terms of causality. However, in contrast to standard “causal consistency,” our interpretation defines relativistic linearizability in a manner that retains the important locality property of linearizability. That is, a collection of shared objects behaves in a relativistically linearizable way if and only if each object individually behaves in a relativistically linearizable way.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Ahamad, M., Neiger, G., Burns, J.E., Kohli, P., Hutto, P.W.: Causal memory: Definitions, implementation, and programming. Distr. Comp. 9(1), 37–49 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attiya, H., Bar-Noy, A., Dolev, D.: Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. J. ACM 42(1), 124–142 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailis, P., Fekete, A., Ghodsi, A., Hellerstein, J.M., Stoica, I.: The potential dangers of causal consistency and an explicit solution. In: Proc. of the 5th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewer, E.A.: Towards robust distributed systems (Invited Talk). In: Proc. of the 19th Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burckhardt, S., Gotsman, A., Yang, H.: Understanding eventual consistency. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2013-39 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Candia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., Vogels, W.: Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proc. of the 21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Einstein, A.: The Meaning of Relativity, 6th edn. Taylor & Francis (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman, R., Vitenberg, R., Chockler, G.: On the composability of consistency conditions. Inf. Process. Lett. 86(4), 169–176 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golab, W., Hadzilacos, V., Hendler, D., Woelfel, P.: RMR-efficient implementations of comparison primitives using read and write operations. Distr. Comp. 25(2), 109–162 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golab, W., Higham, L., Woelfel, P.: Linearizable implementations do not suffice for randomized distributed computation. In: Proc. of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 373–382 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hay, J.Z.Y.: Using local time to reconstruct memory models for parallel computation. Final year project. National University of Singapore (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hay, J.Z.Y., Tay, Y.C.: Memory consistency for parallel systems: A reformulation without global time (keynote address). In: Proc. National Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herlihy, M., Wing, J.M.: Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM TOPLAS 12(3), 463–492 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, J.: The interplanetary internet. IEEE Spectrum (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamport, L.: On interprocess communication, Part I: Basic formalism and Part II: Algorithms. Distributed Computing 1(2), 77–101 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun. ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lloyd, W., Freedman, M.J., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.G.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: Proc. 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 401–416 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lynch, N., Gilbert, S.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. ACM SIGACT News 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Terry, D., Petersen, K., Spreitzer, M., Theimer, M.: The case for non-transparent replication: Examples from Bayou. IEEE Data Engineering Bull. 21(4), 12–20 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vogels, W.: Eventually consistent. ACM Queue 6(6), 14–19 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhu, Y., Wang, J.: Client-centric consistency formalization and verification for system with large-scale distributed data storage. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 26(8), 1180–1188 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations