Maintaining order in a generalized linked list
Acta Informatica
Two algorithms for maintaining order in a list
STOC '87 Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Detecting global termination conditions in the face of uncertainty
PODC '87 Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Optimal fault-tolerant distributed construction of a spanning forest
Information Processing Letters
Fault tolerant distributed majority commitment
Journal of Algorithms
Competitive distributed job scheduling (extended abstract)
STOC '92 Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Sparser: a paradigm for running distributed algorithms
Journal of Algorithms
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Local management of a global resource in a communication network
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Competitive On-Line Algorithms for Distributed Data Management
SIAM Journal on Computing
Introduction to algorithms
Lower Bounds for Monotonic List Labeling
SWAT '90 Proceedings of the 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory
Fast Updating of Well-Balanced Trees
SWAT '90 Proceedings of the 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory
A Sparse Table Implementation of Priority Queues
Proceedings of the 8th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
Two Simplified Algorithms for Maintaining Order in a List
ESA '02 Proceedings of the 10th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms
Maintaining dense sequential files in a dynamic environment (Extended Abstract)
STOC '82 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Maintaining order in a linked list
STOC '82 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
A Tight Lower Bound for Online Monotonic List Labeling
SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics
Controller and estimator for dynamic networks
Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Labeling schemes for weighted dynamic trees
Information and Computation
Improved compact routing schemes for dynamic trees
Proceedings of the twenty-seventh ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Efficient threshold detection in a distributed environment: extended abstract
Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Dense subgraphs on dynamic networks
DISC'12 Proceedings of the 26th international conference on Distributed Computing
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The (M, W)-controller, originally studied by Afek, Awerbuch, Plotkin, and Saks, is a basic distributed tool that provides an abstraction for managing the consumption of a global resource in a distributed dynamic network. The input to the controller arrives online in the form of requests presented at arbitrary nodes. A request presented at node u corresponds to the "desire" of some entity to consume one unit of the global resource at u and the controller should handle this request within finite time by either granting it with a permit or denying it. Initially, M permits (corresponding to M units of the global resource) are stored at a designated root node. Throughout the execution permits can be transported from place to place along the network's links so that they can be granted to requests presented at various nodes; when a permit is granted to some request, it is eliminated from the network. The fundamental rule of an (M, W)-controller is that a request should not be denied unless it is certain that at least M - W permits are eventually granted. The most efficient (M, W)-controller known to date has message complexity O(N log2 N log M/W+1), where N is the number of nodes that ever existed in the network (the dynamic network may undergo node insertions and deletions). In this paper we establish two new lower bounds on the message complexity of the controller problem. We first prove a simple lower bound stating that any (M, W)-controller must send Ω(N log M/W+1) messages. Second, for the important case when W is proportional to M (this is the common case in most applications), we use a surprising reduction from the (centralized) monotonic labeling problem to show that any (M, W)- controller must send Ω(N log N) messages. In fact, under a long lasting conjecture regarding the complexity of the monotonic labeling problem, this lower bound is improved to a tight Ω(N log2 N). The proof of this lower bound requires that N = O(M) which turns out to be somewhat inevitable due to a new construction of an (M, M/2)-controller with message complexity O(N log2 M).