Skip to main content

Strongly Terminating Early-Stopping k-Set Agreement in Synchronous Systems with General Omission Failures

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 4056))

Abstract

The k-set agreement problem is a generalization of the consensus problem: considering a system made up of n processes where each process proposes a value, each non-faulty process has to decide a value such that a decided value is a proposed value, and no more than k different values are decided. It has recently be shown that, in the crash failure model, min\((\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)\) is a lower bound on the number of rounds for the non-faulty processes to decide (where t is an upper bound on the number of process crashes, and f, 0 ≤ft, the actual number of crashes).

This paper considers the k-set agreement problem in synchronous systems where up to t < n /2 processes can experience general omission failures (i.e., a process can crash or omit sending or receiving messages). It first introduces a new property, called strong termination. This property is on the processes that decide. It is satisfied if, not only every non-faulty process, but any process that neither crashes nor commits receive omission failures decides. The paper then presents a k-set agreement protocol that enjoys the following features. First, it is strongly terminating (to our knowledge, it is the first agreement protocol to satisfy this property, whatever the failure model considered). Then, it is early deciding and stopping in the sense that a process that either is non-faulty or commits only send omission failures decides and halts by round min\((\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)\). To our knowledge, this is the first early deciding k-set agreement protocol for the general omission failure model. Moreover, the protocol provides also the following additional early stopping property: a process that commits receive omission failures (and does not crash) executes at most min\((\lceil \frac{f}{k} \rceil +2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)\) rounds. It is worth noticing that the protocol allows each property (strong termination vs early deciding/stopping vs early stopping) not to be obtained at the detriment of the two others.

The combination of the fact that min\((\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)\) is lower bound on the number of rounds in the crash failure model, and the very existence of the proposed protocol has two very interesting consequences. First, it shows that, although general omission failure model is more severe than the crash failure model, both models have the same lower bound for the non-faulty processes to decide. Second, it shows that, in the general omission failure model, that bound applies also the processes that commit only send omission failures.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguilera, M.K., Toueg, S.: A Simple Bivalency Proof that t-Resilient Consensus Requires t + 1 Rounds. Information Processing Letters 71, 155–178 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Attiya, H., Welch, J.: Distributed Computing, Fundamentals, Simulation and Advanced Topics, 2nd edn. Wiley Series on Parallel and Distributed Computing, pages 414 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biran, O., Moran, S., Zaks, S.: A Combinatorial Characterization of the Distributed 1-Solvable Tasks. Journal of Algorithms 11(3), 420–440 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Biran, O., Moran, S., Zaks, S.: Tight Bounds on the Round Complexity of Distributed 1-Solvable Tasks. Theoretical Computer Science 145(1-2), 271–290 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Borowsky, E., Gafni, E., Generalized, F.L.P.: Impossibility Results for t-Resilient Asynchronous Computations. In: Proc. 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC 1993), California (USA), pp. 91–100 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Charron-Bost, B., Schiper, A.: Uniform Consensus is Harder than Consensus. Journal of Algorithms 51(1), 15–37 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhuri, S.: More Choices Allow More Faults: Set Consensus Problems in Totally Asynchronous Systems. Information and Computation 105, 132–158 (1993)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudhuri, S., Herlihy, M., Lynch, N., Tuttle, M.: Tight Bounds for k-Set Agreement. Journal of the ACM 47(5), 912–943 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolev, D., Reischuk, R., Strong, R.: Early Stopping in Byzantine Agreement. Journal of the ACM 37(4), 720–741 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A.: A Lower Bound on the Time to Assure Interactive Consistency. Information Processing Letters 14(4), 183–186 (1982)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Gafni, E., Guerraoui, R., Pochon, B.: >From a Static Impossibility to an Adaptive Lower Bound: The Complexity of Early Deciding Set Agreement. In: Proc. 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2005), Baltimore (MD), pp. 714–722 (May 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Guerraoui, R., Pochon, B.: The Complexity of Early Deciding Set Agreement: how Topology Can Help? In: Proc. 4th Workshop in Geometry and Topology in Concurrency and Distributed Computing (GETCO 2004), BRICS Notes Series, NS-04-2, Amsterdam (NL), pp. 26-31 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hadzilacos, V.: Issues of Fault Tolerance in Concurrent Computations. PhD Thesis, Tech Report 11-84, Harvard University, Cambridge (MA) (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hadzilacos, V., Toueg, S.: Reliable Broadcast and Related Problems. In: Mullender, S. (ed.) Distributed Systems, pp. 97–145. ACM Press, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Herlihy, M.P., Penso, L.D.: Tight Bounds for k-Set Agreement with Limited Scope Accuracy Failure Detectors. Distributed Computing 18(2), 157–166 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Herlihy, M.P., Shavit, N.: The Topological Structure of Asynchronous Computability. Journal of the ACM 46(6), 858–923 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Keidar, I., Rajsbaum, S.: A Simple Proof of the Uniform Consensus Synchronous Lower Bound. Information Processing Letters 85, 47–52 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamport, L., Fischer, M.: Byzantine Generals and Transaction Commit Protocols, p. 16 (April 1982) (unpublished manuscript)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lynch, N.A.: Distributed Algorithms, p. 872. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco (CA) (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Mostéfaoui, A., Raynal, M.: k-Set Agreement with Limited Accuracy Failure Detectors. In: Proc. 19th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2000), pp. 143–152. ACM Press, Portland, OR (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Mostéfaoui, A., Raynal, M.: Randomized Set Agreement. In: Proc. 13th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA 2001), Hersonissos (Crete), pp. 291–297. ACM Press, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Neiger, G., Toueg, S.: Automatically Increasing the Fault-Tolerance of Distributed Algorithms. Journal of Algorithms 11, 374–419 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Pease, L., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching Agreement in Presence of Faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Perry, K.J., Toueg, S.: Distributed Agreement in the Presence of Processor and Communication Faults. IEEE Transactions on Software Eng. SE-12(3), 477–482 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Raípin Parvédy, P., Raynal, M.: Optimal Early Stopping Uniform Consensus in Synchronous Systems with Process Omission Failures. In: Proc. 16th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA 2004), Barcelona (Spain), pp. 302–310. ACM Press, New York (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Raïpin Parvédy, P., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: Early-Stopping k-Set Agreement in Synchronous Systems Prone to Any Number of Process Crashes. In: Malyshkin, V.E. (ed.) PaCT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3606, pp. 49–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Raípin Parvédy, P., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: Decision Optimal Early-Stopping k-set Agreement in Synchronous Systems Prone to Send Omission Failures. In: Proc. 11th IEEE Pacific Rim Int. Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC 2005), Changsa (China), pp. 23–30. IEEE Computer Press, Los Alamitos (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Raïpin Parvédy P., Raynal M., Travers C.: Strongly Terminating Early-Stopping k-set Agreement in Synchronous Systems with General Omission Failures. Tech Report #1711, IRISA, Université de Rennes (France), pages 22 (2005), ftp://ftp.irisa.fr/techreports/2005/PI-1711.ps.gz

  30. Raynal, M.: Consensus in Synchronous Systems: a Concise Guided Tour. In: Proc. 9th IEEE Pacific Rim Int. Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC 2002), pp. 221–228. IEEE Computer Press, Tsukuba (Japan) (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Saks, M., Zaharoglou, F.: Wait-Free k-Set Agreement is Impossible: The Topology of Public Knowledge. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(5), 1449–1483 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang, J., Neiger, G., Gafni, E.: Structured Derivations of Consensus Algorithms for Failure Detectors. In: Proc. 17th Int. ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 1998), Puerto Vallarta (Mexico), July 1998, pp. 297–308. ACM Press, New York (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Parvédy, P.R., Raynal, M., Travers, C. (2006). Strongly Terminating Early-Stopping k-Set Agreement in Synchronous Systems with General Omission Failures. In: Flocchini, P., Gąsieniec, L. (eds) Structural Information and Communication Complexity. SIROCCO 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4056. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11780823_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11780823_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-35474-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-35475-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics