Revisiting the relationship between non-blocking atomic commitment and consensus
This paper discusses the relationship between the Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment problem (NB-AC) and the Consensus problem in asynchronous systems with unreliable failure detectors. We first confirm that NB-AC is harder than Consensus. In contrast to Consensus, NB-AC is impossible to solve with unreliable failure detectors even with a single crash failure. We define a weaker problem than NB-AC, called Non-Blocking Weak Atomic Commitment (NB-WAC), which is sufficient to solve for most practical situations. A fundamental characteristic of NB-WAC is its reducibility to Consensus. The previous results on solving Consensus with unreliable failure detectors apply therefore to NB-WAC. An interesting intermediate result of this reducibility is that Uniform Consensus and Consensus are equivalent problems. We show actually that any algorithm that solves Consensus with unreliable failure detectors also solves Uniform Consensus.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.O. Babaoglu and S. Toueg. Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment. In Distributed Systems, pages 147–166. Sape Mullender ed, ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
- 2.P.A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
- 3.T. Chandra, V. Hadzilacos and S. Toueg. The Weakest Failure Detector for Solving Consensus. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 147–158. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 4.T. Chandra and S. Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Cornell Univ, 1994. A preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 325–340. ACM Press, 1991.Google Scholar
- 6.D. Dolev and R. Strong. A Simple Model For Agreement in Distributed Systems. In Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing, pages 42–50. B. Simons and A. Spector ed, Springer Verlag (LNCS 448), 1987.Google Scholar
- 8.J. Gray. A Comparison of the Byzantine Agreement Problem and the Transaction Commit Problem. In Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing, pages 10–17. B. Simons and A. Spector ed, Springer Verlag (LNCS 448), 1987.Google Scholar
- 9.R. Guerraoui, M. Larrea and A. Schiper. Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment with an Unreliable Failure Detector. To appear in Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.R. Guerraoui and A. Schiper. The Decentralized Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment Protocol. To appear in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, 1995.Google Scholar
- 11.R. Guerraoui and A. Schiper. Transaction model vs Virtual Synchrony model: bridging the gap. In Distributed Systems: From Theory to Practice, pages 121–132. K. Birman, F. Mattern and A. Schiper ed, Springer Verlag (LNCS 938), 1995.Google Scholar
- 12.V. Hadzilacos. On the relationship between the atomic commitment and consensus problems. In Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing, pages 201–208. B. Simons and A. Spector ed, Springer Verlag (LNCS 448), 1987.Google Scholar
- 13.L. Sabel and K. Marzullo. Election Vs. Consensus in Asynchronous Systems. Technical Report TR95-1488, Cornell Univ, 1995.Google Scholar
- 14.A. Schiper and A. Sandoz. Primary Partition “Virtually-synchronous Communication” Harder than Consensus. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, pages 39–52. Springer Verlag (LNCS 857), 1994.Google Scholar
- 15.D. Skeen. NonBlocking Commit Protocols. In Proceedings of the A CM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 133–142. ACM Press, 1981.Google Scholar