skip to main content
10.1145/2484239.2484249acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Synchrony weakened by message adversaries vs asynchrony restricted by failure detectors

Published:22 July 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

A message adversary is a daemon that suppresses messages in round-based message-passing synchronous systems in which no process crashes. A property imposed on a message adversary defines a subset of messages that cannot be eliminated by the adversary. It has recently been shown that when a message adversary is constrained by a property denoted TOUR (for tournament), the corresponding synchronous system and the asynchronous crash-prone read/write system have the same computability power for task solvability.

This paper introduces new message adversary properties (denoted SOURCE and QUORUM), and shows that the synchronous round-based systems whose adversaries are constrained by these properties are characterizations of classical asynchronous crash-prone systems (1) in which processes communicate through atomic read/write registers or point-to-point message-passing, and (2) enriched with failure detectors such asOmega and Sigma. Hence these properties characterize maximal adversaries, in the sense that they define strongest message adversaries equating classical asynchronous crash-prone systems. They consequently provide strong relations linking round-based synchrony weakened by message adversaries with asynchrony restricted with failure detectors. This not only enriches our understanding of the synchrony/asynchrony duality, but also allows for the establishment of a meaningful hierarchy of property-constrained message adversaries.

References

  1. Afek Y. and Gafni E., Asynchrony from synchrony. Proc. Int'l Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking(ICDCN'13), Springer LNCS 7730, pp. 225--239, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Afek Y., Gafni E, and Linial N.,A king in two tournaments. Unpublished report, 3 pages, March 2012. http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/ nati/PAPERS/king_tournaments.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Biely M., Robinson P., and Schmid U., Agreement in directed dynamic networks. Proc. 19th Int'l Colloqium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO'12), Springer LNCS 7355, pp 73--84, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chandra T. and Toueg S., Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM, 43(2):225--267, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chandra T., Hadzilacos V. and Toueg S.,The weakest failure detector for solving consensus. Journal of the ACM, 43(4):685--722, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Charron-Bost B. and Schiper A., The heard-of model: computing in distributed systems with benign faults. Distributed Computing, 22(1):49--71, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cornejo A., Rajsbaum S., Raynal M., Travers C.,Failure Detectors as Schedulers (Brief Announcement). Proc. 26th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), ACM Press, pp. 308--309, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Delporte-Gallet C., Fauconnier H., and Guerraoui R., Tight failure detection bounds on atomic object implementations. Journal of the ACM, 57(4), Article 22, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Delporte-Gallet C., Fauconnier H., and Toueg S., The minimum information about failures for solving non-local tasks in message- passing systems. Distributed Computing, 24(5):255--269, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Fernández Anta A. and Raynal M., From an asynchronous intermittent rotating star to an eventual leader. IEEE Transactions on Parallel Distributed Systems, 21(9):1290--1303, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Herlihy M.P., Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):124--149, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Herlihy M.P. and Shavit N., The topological structure of asynchronous computability. Journal ACM, 46(6):858--923, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kuhn F., Lynch N.A., and Oshman R.,Distributed computation in dynamic networks. Proc. 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'10),ACM press, pp. 513--522, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Landau H.G., On dominance relations and the structure of animalsocieties, III: The condition for score structure. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 15(2):143--148, 1953.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Lo W.-K. and Hadzilacos V., Using failure detectors to solve consensus in asynchronousshared-memory systems. Proc. 8th Int'l Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (WDAG'94),Springer LNCS 857, pp. 280--295, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mourgaya E., Mostéfaoui A., and Raynal M., Asynchronous implementation of failure detectors. Proc. Int'l IEEE Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN2003), IEEE Press, pp. 351--360, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Pike S.M., Sastry S. and Welch J.L., Failure detectors encapsulate fairness. Distributed Computing, 25(4): 313--333, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Rajsbaum S., Raynal M., Travers C., The iterated restricted immediate snapshot model. Proc. 14th Annual Int'l Conference on Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON 2008), Springer LNCS 5092, pp. 487--497, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Raynal M., Failure detectors for asynchronous distributed systems: an introduction. Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering,2:1181--1191, 2009. (ISBN 978-0-471-38393-2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Raynal M. and Stainer J., Increasing the power of the iterated immediate snapshot model with failure detectors. Proc. 19th Int'l Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO'12), Springer LNCS 7355, pp. 231--242, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Raynal M. and Stainer J., Round-based synchrony weakened by message adversaries vs asynchrony enriched with failure detectors. Tech Report 8235, IRISA, Université de Rennes (F), 19 pages, 2012.(http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00787978/)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Santoro N. and Widmayer P.,Time is not a healer. Proc. 6th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science(STACS'89), Springer LNCS 349, pp. 304--316, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Santoro N. and Widmayer P.,Agreement in synchronous networks with ubiquitous faults. Theoretical Computer Science, 384(2-3): 232--249, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Schmid U., Weiss B., and Keidar I., Impossibility results and lower bounds for consensus under link failures. SIAM Journal of Computing, 38(5): 1912--1951, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Synchrony weakened by message adversaries vs asynchrony restricted by failure detectors

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader