Abstract
A fundamental research theme in distributed computing is the comparison of systems in terms of their ability to solve basic problems such as consensus that cannot be solved in completely asynchronous systems. In particular, in a seminal work [12], Herlihy compares shared-memory systems in terms of the shared objects that they have: he proved that there are shared objects that are powerful enough to solve consensus for n processes, but are too weak to solve consensus for n + 1 processes; such objects are placed at level n of a wait-free hierarchy.
As in [12], we compare shared-memory systems with respect to their ability to solve consensus for n processes. But instead of comparing systems defined by the shared objects that they have, we compare read-write systems defined by the set of process schedules that can occur in these systems. Defining systems this way can capture many types of systems, e.g., systems whose synchrony ranges from fully synchronous to completely asynchronous, several systems with failure detectors, and “obstruction-free” systems. In this paper, we consider read-write systems defined in terms of sets of process schedules, and investigate the following fundamental question: Is there a system of n + 1 processes such that consensus can be solved for every subset of n processes in the system, but consensus cannot be solved for the n + 1 processes of the system? We show that the answer to the above question is “yes”, and so these systems can be classified into hierarchy akin to Herlihy’s hierarchy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguilera, M.K., Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Toueg, S.: Partial synchrony based on set timeliness. Distributed Computing 25(3), 249–260 (2012)
Aguilera, M.K., Toueg, S.: Adaptive progress: a gracefully-degrading liveness property. Distributed Computing 22(5-6), 303–334 (2010)
Biely, M., Robinson, P., Schmid, U.: The generalized loneliness detector and weak system models for k-set agreement. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 25(4), 1078–1088 (2014)
Borowsky, E., Gafni, E.: Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 91–100 (1993)
Chandra, T.D., Toueg, S.: Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM 43(2), 225–267 (1996)
Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Gafni, E., Rajsbaum, S.: Black art: Obstruction-free k-set agreement with |MWMR registers| < |proccesses|. In: Gramoli, V., Guerraoui, R. (eds.) NETYS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7853, pp. 28–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R.: Tight failure detection bounds on atomic object implementations. Journal of the ACM 57(4), April 2010
Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Guerraoui, R., Tielmann, A.: The disagreement power of an adversary. Distributed Computing 24(3-4), 137–147 (2011)
Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Stockmeyer, L.J.: On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. Journal of the ACM 34(1), 77–97 (1987)
Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)
Gafni, E., Kuznetsov, P.: The weakest failure detector for solving k-set agreement. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 83–91 (2009)
Herlihy, M.: Wait-free synchronization. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13(1), 124–149 (1991)
Herlihy, M., Luchangco, V., Moir, M.: Obstruction-free synchronization: Double-ended queues as an example. In: ICDCS 2003: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 522–529. IEEE Computer Society, May 2003
Herlihy, M., Shavit, N.: The topological structure of asynchronous computability. Journal of the ACM 46(6), 858–923 (1999)
Loui, M., Abu-Amara, H.: Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Advances in Computing Research 4(31), 163–183 (1987)
Pike, S.M., Sastry, S., Welch, J.L.: Failure detectors encapsulate fairness. In: Lu, C., Masuzawa, T., Mosbah, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6490, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Rajsbaum, S., Raynal, M., Travers, C.: The iterated restricted immediate snapshot model. In: Hu, X., Wang, J. (eds.) COCOON 2008. LNCS, vol. 5092, pp. 487–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Saks, M., Zaharoglou, F.: Wait-free k-set agreement is impossible: The topology of public knowledge. SIAM J. Comput. 29(5), 1449–1483 (2000)
Zielinski, P.: Anti-Ω: the weakest failure detector for set agreement. Distributed Computing 22(5-6), 335–348 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Delporte-Gallet, C., Fauconnier, H., Toueg, S. (2015). A Separation of n-consensus and (n + 1)-consensus Based on Process Scheduling. In: Scheideler, C. (eds) Structural Information and Communication Complexity. SIROCCO 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9439. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25258-2_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25258-2_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25257-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25258-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)