skip to main content
10.1145/1835698.1835723acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Eventually linearizable shared objects

Published: 25 July 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Linearizability is the strongest known consistency property of shared objects. In asynchronous message passing systems, Linearizability can be achieved with ◊S and a majority of correct processes. In this paper we introduce the notion of Eventual Linearizability, the strongest known consistency property that can be attained with ◊S and any number of crashes. We show that linearizable shared object implementations can be augmented to support weak operations, which need to be linearized only eventually. Unlike strong operations that require to be always linearized, weak operations terminate in worst case runs. However, there is a tradeoff between ensuring termination of weak and strong operations when processes have only access to ◊S. If weak operations terminate in the worst case, then we show that strong operations terminate only in the absence of concurrent weak operations. Finally, we show that an implementation based on P exists that guarantees termination of all operations.

References

[1]
A. S. Aiyer, E. Anderson, X. Li, M. A. Shah and J. J. Wylie, "Consistability: Describing Usually Consistent Systems," Proc. of Fourth Workshop on Hot Topics in System Dependability, 2008.
[2]
H. Attiya and R. Friedman, "A Correctness Condition for High-Performance Multiprocessors," Proc. twenty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 679--690, 1992.
[3]
H. Attiya and J. Welch, Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations, and Advanced Topics. J. Wiley & sons, 2004.
[4]
K. Birman, G. Chockler and R. van Renesse, "Toward a Cloud Computing Research Agenda," ACM SIGACT News, 40(2), pp. 68--80, Jun. 2009.
[5]
T. D. Chandra, V. Hadzilacos and S. Toueg, "The Weakest Failure Detector to Solve Consensus," Journal of the ACM, 43(4), pp. 685--722, Jul. 1996.
[6]
T. D. Chandra and S. Toueg, "Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems," Journal of the ACM, 43(2), pp. 225--267, Mar. 1996.
[7]
F. Chu, "Reducing Ω to W," Information Processing Letters, 67, pp. 289--193, 1998.
[8]
B. F. Cooper, R. Ramakrishnan, U. Srivastava, A. Silberstein, P. Bohannon, H.-A. Jacobsen, N. Puz, D. Weaver and R. Yerneni, "PNUTS: Yahoo!'s Hosted Data Serving Platform," Proc. of the VLDB Endowment, 1(2), pp. 1277--1288, Aug. 2008.
[9]
G. DeCandia, D. Hastorun, M. Jampani, G. Kakulapati, A. Lakshman, A. Pilchin, S. Sivasubramanian, P. Vosshall and W. Vogels, "Dynamo: Amazon's Highly Available Key-value Store," Proc. of twenty-first ACM SIGOPS Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 205--220, 2007.
[10]
A. Fekete, D. Gupta, V. Luchangco, N. Lynch and A. Shvartsman, "Eventually-Serializable Data Services," Proc. of the fifteenth annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 300--309, 1996.
[11]
S. Ghemawat, H. Gobioff and S. T. Leung, "The Google File System," Proc. of the nineteenth ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 29--43, 2003.
[12]
M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing, "Specifying Graceful Degradation in Distributed Systems," Proc. of the sixth annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 167--177, 1987.
[13]
M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing, "Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects," ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 12(3), pp. 463--492, Jul. 1990.
[14]
P. W. Hutto and M. Ahamad, "Slow Memory: Weakening Consistency to Enhance Concurrency in Distributed Shared Memory," Proc. of the tenth IEEE Int'l Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, 1990.
[15]
R. Ladin, B. Liskov, L. Shrira and S. Ghemawat, "Lazy Replication: Exploiting the Semantic of Distributed Services," ACM Trans. on Computers, 10(4), pp. 360--391, Nov. 1992.
[16]
L. Lamport, "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System," Comm. of the ACM, 21(7), pp. 558--565, Jul. 1978.
[17]
L. Lamport, "The Part-time Parliament," ACM Trans. on Computers, 16(2), pp. 133--169, May 1998.
[18]
L. Lamport, "Generalized Consensus and Paxos," Microsoft Research TR MSR-TR-2005-33.
[19]
M. Raynal and A. Schiper, "A Suite of Formal Definitions for Consistency Criteria in Distributed Shared Memories," IRISA TR. 968, 1995.
[20]
Y. Saito and M. Shapiro, "Optimistic Replication," ACM Computing Surveys, 37(1), pp. 42--81, Mar. 2005.
[21]
M. Serafini, D. Dobre, M. Majuntke, P. Bokor and N. Suri, "Eventually Linearizable Shared Objects," TR-TUD-DEEDS-02-01-2010, 2010.
[22]
A. Singh, P. Fonseca, P. Kouznetsov, R. Rodrigues and P. Maniatis, "Zeno: Eventually Consistent Byzantine-Fault Tolerance," Proc. of the sixth USENIX Symp. on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 196--184, 2008.
[23]
D. B. Terry, M. M. Theimer, K. Petersen, A. J. Demers, M. J. Spreitzer and C. H. Hauser, "Managing update conflicts in Bayou, a weakly connected replicated storage system," Proc. of the fifteenth ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, pp 172--182, 1995.
[24]
F. J. Torres-Rojas, M. Ahamad and M. Raynal, "Timed Consistency for Shared Distributed Objects," Proc. of the eighteenth annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 163--172, 1999.
[25]
W. Vogels, "Eventually consistent," Comm. of the ACM, 52(1), pp. 40--44, 2009.
[26]
L. Zhou, V. Prabhakaran, V. Ramasubramanian, R. Levin and C. A. Thekkath, "Graceful Degradation via Versions: Specifications and Implementations," Proc. of the twenty-sixth annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, 2007.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)On the correctness of highly available systems in the presence of failuresJournal of Parallel and Distributed Computing10.1016/j.jpdc.2023.04.008180(104707)Online publication date: Oct-2023
  • (2020)Practical client-side replicationProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3407790.340784713:12(2590-2605)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2020
  • (2017)Geo-distribution of actor-based servicesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31339311:OOPSLA(1-26)Online publication date: 12-Oct-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
PODC '10: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing
July 2010
494 pages
ISBN:9781605588889
DOI:10.1145/1835698
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 July 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. availability
  2. eventual linearizability
  3. graceful degradation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

PODC '10
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)On the correctness of highly available systems in the presence of failuresJournal of Parallel and Distributed Computing10.1016/j.jpdc.2023.04.008180(104707)Online publication date: Oct-2023
  • (2020)Practical client-side replicationProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3407790.340784713:12(2590-2605)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2020
  • (2017)Geo-distribution of actor-based servicesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/31339311:OOPSLA(1-26)Online publication date: 12-Oct-2017
  • (2017)The weakest failure detector for eventual consistencyDistributed Computing10.1007/s00446-016-0292-932:6(479-492)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2017
  • (2016)Consistency in Non-Transactional Distributed Storage SystemsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/292696549:1(1-34)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2016
  • (2015)Brief AnnouncementProceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing10.1145/2767386.2767448(237-239)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2015
  • (2015)The Weakest Failure Detector for Eventual ConsistencyProceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing10.1145/2767386.2767404(375-384)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2015
  • (2014)A paradox of eventual linearizability in shared memoryProceedings of the 2014 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing10.1145/2611462.2611484(40-49)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2014
  • (2012)Crash Resilient and Pseudo-Stabilizing Atomic RegistersPrinciples of Distributed Systems10.1007/978-3-642-35476-2_10(135-150)Online publication date: 2012
  • (2010)VenusProceedings of the 2010 ACM workshop on Cloud computing security workshop10.1145/1866835.1866841(19-30)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2010
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media