Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eventual Leader Election with Weak Assumptions on Initial Knowledge, Communication Reliability, and Synchrony

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

his paper considers the eventual leader election problem in asynchronous message-passing systems where an arbitrary number t of processes can crash (t < n, where n is the total number of processes). It considers weak assumptions both on the initial knowledge of the processes and on the network behavior. More precisely, initially, a process knows only its identity and the fact that the process identities are different and totally ordered (it knows neither n nor t). Two eventual leader election protocols and a lower bound are presented. The first protocol assumes that a process also knows a lower bound α on the number of processes that do not crash. This protocol requires the following behavioral properties from the underlying network: the graph made up of the correct processes and fair lossy links is strongly connected, and there is a correct process connected to (n − f) − α other correct processes (where f is the actual number of crashes in the considered run) through eventually timely paths (paths made up of correct processes and eventually timely links). This protocol is not communication-efficient in the sense that each correct process has to send messages forever. The second protocol is communication-efficient: after some time, only the final common leader has to send messages forever. This protocol does not require the processes to know α, but requires stronger properties from the underlying network: each pair of correct processes has to be connected by fair lossy links (one in each direction), and there is a correct process whose n − f − 1 output links to the rest of correct processes have to be eventually timely. A matching lower bound result shows that any eventual leader election protocol must have runs with this number of eventually timely links, even if all processes know all the processes identities. In addition to being communication-efficient, the second protocol has another noteworthy efficiency property, namely, be the run finite or infinite, all the local variables and message fields have a finite domain in the run.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chandra T D, Toueg S. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM, 1996, 43(2): 225–267.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Raynal M. A short introduction to failure detectors for asynchronous distributed systems. ACM SIGACT News, Distributed Computing Column, 2005, 36(1): 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandra T D, Hadzilacos V, Toueg S. The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. Journal of the ACM, 1996, 43(4): 685–722.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen W, Toueg S, Aguilera M K. On the quality of service of failure detectors. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2002, 51(5): 561–580.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Défago X, Urbán P, Hayashibara N, Katayama T. Definition and specification of accrual failure detectors. In Proc. Int. Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN2005), Yokohama, Japan, June 28-July 1, 2005, pp.206–215.

  6. Fetzer C, Raynal M, Tronel F. An adaptive failure detection protocol. In Proc. the 8th IEEE Pacific Rim Int. Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC2001), Seoul, Korea, Dec. 17-19, 2001, pp.146–153.

  7. Gupta I, Chandra T D, Goldszmidt G S. On scalable and efficient distributed failure detectors. In Proc. the 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC2001), New Port, USA, Aug. 26-29, 2001, pp.170–179.

  8. Larrea M, Fernández A, Arévalo S. On the implementation of unreliable failure detectors in partially synchronous systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2004, 53(7): 815–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiesmann M, Urbán P, Défago X. An SNMP based failure detection service. In Proc. the 25th Int. Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS 2006), IEEE Computer Press, 2006, pp.365–374.

  10. Lamport L. The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1998, 16(2): 133–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schiper A. Early consensus in an asynchronous system with a weak failure detector. Distributed Computing, 1997, 10(9): 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mostefaoui A, Raynal M. Leader-based consensus. Parallel Processing Letters, 2001, 11(1): 95–107.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Guerraoui R, Raynal M. The information structure of indulgent consensus. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2004, 53(4): 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mostefaoui A, Raynal M. Low-cost consensus-based atomic broadcast. In Proc. the 7th IEEE Pacific Rim Int. Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC2000), Los Angeles, USA, Dec. 18-20, 2000, pp.45–52.

  15. Pedone F, Schiper A. Handling message semantics with generic broadcast protocols. Distributed Computing, 2002, 15(2): 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer M J, Lynch N, Paterson M S. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 1985, 32(2): 374–382.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Mostefaoui A, Raynal M, Travers C. Crash-resilient time-free eventual leadership. In Proc. the 23rd Int. IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS 2004), Florianpolis, Brazil, Oct. 18-20, 2004, pp.208–217.

  18. Larrea M, Fernández A, Arévalo S. Optimal implementation of the weakest failure detector for solving consensus. In Proc. the 19th IEEE Int. Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS 2000), Nürnberg, Germany, Oct. 16-18, 2000, pp.52–60.

  19. Aguilera M K, Delporte-Gallet C, Fauconnier H, Toueg S. On implementing omega with weak reliability and synchrony assumptions. In Proc. the 22nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC2003), Boston, USA, Jul. 13-16, 2003, pp.306–314.

  20. Dwork C, Lynch N, Stockmeyer L. Consensus in presence of partial synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 198, 35(2): 288–3238.

  21. Aguilera M K, Delporte-Gallet C, Fauconnier H, Toueg S. Communication efficient leader election and consensus with limited link synchrony. In Proc. 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2004), St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada, Jul. 25-28, 2004, pp.328–337.

  22. Malkhi D, Oprea F, Zhou L. Ω meets paxos: Leader election and stability without eventual timeley links. In Proc. the 19th Int. Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2005), Cracow, Poland, Sept. 26-29, 2005, pp.199–213.

  23. Hutle M, Malkhi D, Schmid U, Zhou L. Chasing the weakest system model for implementing Ω and consensus. Research Report 74/2005, Technische Universität Wien, Institut für Technische Informatik, July 2006.

  24. Mostefaoui A, Mourgaya E, Raynal M, Travers C. A timefree assumption to implement eventual leadership. Parallel Processing Letters, 2006, 16(2): 189–208.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Mostefaoui A, Raynal M, Travers C. Time-free and timerbased assumptions can be combined to get eventual leadership. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2006, 17(7): 656–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Powell D. Failure mode assumptions and assumption coverage. In Proc. 22nd Int. Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 1992, Boston, USA, pp.386–395.

  27. Jiménez E, Arévalo S, Fernández A. Implementing unreliable failure detectors with unknown membership. Information Processing Letters, 2006, 100(2): 60–63.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Attiya H, Bar-Noy A, Dolev D, Peleg D, Reischuk R. Renaming in an asynchronous environment. Journal of the ACM, 1990, 37(3): 524–548.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Borowsky E, Gafni E. Immediate atomic snapshots and fast renaming. In Proc. 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 1993), Ithaca, USA, Aug. 15-18, 1993, pp.41–51.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute IMDEA Networks, Avenida del Mar Mediterraneo, 22, 28918, Leganés, Spain

    Antonio Fernández Anta (Senior Member, ACM, IEEE)

  2. EUI, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28031, Madrid, Spain

    Ernesto Jiménez

  3. IRISA, Université de Rennes, Campus de Beaulieu 35 042, Rennes, France

    Michel Raynal

Authors
  1. Antonio Fernández Anta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ernesto Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michel Raynal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Fernández Anta.

Additional information

This work was partially supported by the Comunidad de Madrid under Grant No. S2009/TIC-1692, and the Spanish MEC under Grant Nos. TIN2007-67353-C02-01 and TIN2008-06735-C02-01.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fernández Anta, A., Jiménez, E. & Raynal, M. Eventual Leader Election with Weak Assumptions on Initial Knowledge, Communication Reliability, and Synchrony. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 25, 1267–1281 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-010-9404-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-010-9404-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation